Crushing the Second Amendment

One small incident at a time. I was reading through the news today and stumbled upon a story about a man in Philadelphia that found out first hand that obeying the law isn’t good enough when dealing with the government representatives that we call the “police department”. The story struck me, but not because of the way that the man was, and continues to be, treated by the police officers. No, the story instead struck me because of the stance that the police department has taken in the months since the incident. They not only blatantly refuse to apologize for the way this man was treated, they have gone a step further. They issued a warning that anyone who undertakes a specific legal activity “will be inconvenienced” by the police officers going forward.  A prime example of government trampling our rights yet again.

Let me state up front that I am well aware of the dangers that face a police officer as he goes about his day to day routine. The streets have become a dangerous place, despite the “protect and serve” mantra that we find emblazoned on the side of nearly every police vehicle. And the reality is that many people out there no longer respect the men in blue. I am not one of them. I respect them, but I am also very cognizant of the fact that the hatred towards police officers is in many cases a result of improper or unjustifiable conduct by police officers in the past (and apparently in the present as well). The belief that they merit respect simply because they have on that uniform is something I used to embrace, but no longer do.

I do still respect police officers. I really do. In 95% of my encounters with them, I will listen to their direction, offer them the courtesy that I would offer anyone else, and thank them for what they are doing. But what I refuse to do these days is allow them to treat me like I am less than them. Because it really does anger me when I see them treat others with disrespect. They are supposed to be representatives of the government, SERVING the people of the community. They are not supposed to be some thug authority figure who are endowed with the right to treat people badly, demean or belittle people at will, or put a gun in someone’s face without serious cause. They are not supposed to be a real life incarnation of Cartman, abusing everyone simply because they have a badge and a gun.

Before I go further, allow me to offer the audio tape that spurred this article. In it you will find Mark Fiorino, a law-abiding citizen, confronted by and abused by the Philadelphia police. Take note of the way that he is treated from the very first word that the police officer says to him: “Hey Junior…”

Allow me to put my thoughts out there on this particular incident. I understand that some will judge Mr. Fiorino harshly given that his actions of having a recorder were premeditated. He was obviously expecting to be harassed by the Philadelphia police department and looking to embarrass them if they did. Sadly, his expectations were warranted and he captured on tape the exact thing that he was expecting to capture. Does that make him an asshole? I don’t think so. I think it makes him a citizen who is no longer willing to blindly accept being mistreated by government representatives that are grossly overstepping their authority.

Mark Fiorino

Obviously, there was no video to go along with the audio. But it appears to me that he at no time acted in a threatening manner towards the officer. Remember that this altercation begins with the officer pointing a gun at the citizen, who at that time has done nothing other than walk down the street legally carrying a firearm in a holster on his hip. For doing absolutely nothing wrong, he finds himself beginning this situation at the business end of a government firearm. From there he repeated offers to show the officer his ID and permit and gives the officer the very code that allows him to carry openly. The important thing to remember is that at no time did the citizen make a move towards his weapon or threaten the officer in any way what-so-ever.

The officer, on the other hand, is belligerent from the beginning, ignorant of the law, and uses profanity over and over towards the citizen. When the additional officers arrive on the scene, they immediately begin yelling, threatening, and then forcefully place the law-abiding citizen on the ground. They search him, finding a recorder. They detain him. The demean him and treat him like a common criminal for no other reason than because they can. This is what police officers have become. They are rude, abusive, and have a “god complex,” completely forgetting that they are supposed to be representatives of the government. Unwittingly, they are perfect examples of what government has become in America: arrogant, abusive, and able to mistreat citizens with impunity.

And this was a well spoken white guy. Can you imagine how much worse it likely would have been had this been a black man with baggy pants and a hooded sweatshirt? Had that been the case, would it have ended with a “justified shooting” by a police officer of an innocent man? Had the officer shot Mr. Fiorino in this incident, would this tape exonerating him have ever seen the light of day? Or would the police report read, “suspect made move towards weapon, officer fearing for safety of self and citizens was left no recourse other than warranted discharge of service revolver.”

So what was the fallout from this situation? Surely the officer was reprimanded for his treatment of a law-abiding citizen. Surely a public apology was issued from the Philadelphia Police department. It goes without saying that Mr. Fiorino’s incident resulted in the Philly PD re-training officers and assuring the public that law-abiding citizens won’t be accosted in the future in the way that Mr. Fiorino was. Right?

Wrong.

After publishing the audio tape on YouTube for the world to hear, Mr. Fiorino was again abused by the system. The PPD issued a warrant for his arrest on the charges of disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. I listened to the tape and now so have you. Did you hear anything that said he was disorderly or recklessly endangered anyone? Me either. Yet Mr. Fiorino now faces two years in prison for the incident that you listened to above. And to go further, the Philly Police issued a formal statement saying that citizens who legally open carry their weapon will be inconvenienced going forward. They can expect to be placed face-down on the ground until officers can verify that they are not breaking the law. In other words, if you are not breaking the law in Philadelphia, you can expect to be treated as if you are. It’s like martial law without the declaration!

And let’s be honest with each other here. What is the likelihood that someone who is walking down the street openly carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is not doing so legally. Do people without a license to do so, often put it out there on their hip for the police to see? I think not. Which means that the reality is that nearly 100% of those that openly carry are the ones that are doing so legally! Yet the PPD has determined that they are within their rights to place you on the ground like a criminal. You want the best part of that entire audio tape? The fact that the officer preferred that he carry the weapon concealed! Had he concealed his weapon, the cop had no issue with it. But putting it out there for everyone to see makes the officer nervous!

It is high time that we demand better of our public officials. It is sad to me how many times I have had to write that last sentence over the two years that I have been writing at SUFA. As citizens we have the right to live our lives within the laws without fear of being accosted or threatened by the very officers that are charged with “protecting and serving.” So here is my message for law enforcement officers throughout the country:

I understand that your job is tough. But that doesn’t give you the right to treat people badly. You work for us, remember that. We don’t have to tolerate being berated, threatened for no reason, or cussed at, simply because you have a blue shirt and a badge. I am happy to help you where I can. I am happy to obey your directives when you treat me like a person. But if you believe that that badge and gun make you somehow better than me, that it entitles you to treat me badly or demean me or disrespect me, then you are in for a rude awakening. I won’t take it lying down. I am not stupid enough to act in a way that will give you the opportunity to shoot me. But I will absolutely do everything in my power to ruin your career after it is all over. You can either act in a way that is expected when you put that uniform on or I will work to make sure that you don’t get to wear it because you don’t deserve to wear it.

I have long supported officers in situations where they are threatened, where people push them or move towards them in a threatening way. I won’t tolerate people throwing things at officers or berating them or threatening them. I have supported officers reacting responsibly to what is going on around them. And I will continue to do so. But what happened in this case is not justifiable. And I will not support officers treating law-abiding citizens as though they are criminals. It is merely an extension of the authoritarian and elitist mentality that permeates nearly every level of government office.

As a bit of a parting gift, I offer this video that will warm your heart and show you the guy of guy that should be running this country. Yes, he is a bit on the wild side, but he is exactly what we need to turn this ship around. Ted Nugent gives a CNN lefty a lesson in 2nd Amendment reality.

About these ads

Comments

  1. Truthseeker says:

    I am with you on this. The PPD was wrong to immediately pull their firearms out and point it at the citizen without just cause. On top of that, they were not using civil language. How can the PPD expect to be treated with respect if they use verbally abusive language?

    If I was this guy, I would sue.

    • Sue them for what? I do not know about the laws in Philly….abusive language? Violation of civil rights? You have a situation that a police officer over stepped his boundaries in a civil manner (abusive language), he clearly did not understand the law, when questioned through a supervisor, it was determined that he was within his rights to open carry. It seems to me that the problem..that particular problem was solved. I am not in favor of the court system in these issues.

      The real problem that this exposed is the fact that this incident clearly pissed of the heirarchy and clearly pissed off the establishment and in order foe them to save face, they did not admit to screwing up…they clearly sent a signal to all who will openly carry. Expect to be inconvenienced. This is tantamount to being stopped in a vehicle simply because you were within the law and some officer wanted to “check you out” and used reasonable suspicion as an excuse.

      Want to do something?….take it out of the hands of lawyers and the courts….and get a group to go to the city council meetings, get it on the docket, and make sure your friendly media (if such exists) is informed. ANd if it takes 20 city council meetings….then do it and change the policy. I do not feel that any court is going to do anything other than say a police officer is within his rights and departmental policy to check anyone who is openly carrying to make sure that they are authorized. Even if the guy is not doing anything suspicious, the officers are going to be within their rights. That old reasonable suspicion thing.

      This man was treated awful. The officer should be reprimanded if not fired….but to make an open statement that is designed as psuedo gun control is without a doubt the most heinous statement a police department could make.

      City council meetings work here BUT you better have your act together and be organized and understand the procedures of a meeting lest you become a victim of parliamentary procedures.

      • take it out of the hands of lawyers and the courts….and get a group to go to the city council meetings, get it on the docket, and make sure your friendly media (if such exists) is informed. ANd if it takes 20 city council meetings….then do it and change the policy.

        And accomplish what sir? As a former law enforcement officer I can tell you it won’t matter one danged bit what the City Council says…..the cops will do as they please. Heck, it doesn’t even matter what the department bosses say…..the cops on the street will do as they please.

        If they’re told that you can not stop anyone openly carrying, that you must presume they are acting legally they will still find a reason and it will be provided for them. All it will take is for one concerned citizen to call in a “man with a gun” complaint and they have reason to stop you. How they treat you will be a matter of “he said – she said” unless you can prove it by offering up some recording of the encounter. The officers on the street will, regardless of what you think otherwise, always respond within their definition of what was needed to deal with the “situation.”

        In today’s world that is a sad, but true, fact.

        • Hi Plainly….how are ya today? It works here or has worked because I/we have done it…where the police are concerend or actually it was the policy that the police carried out. I just like the idea of the people making changes exercising their rights and influence….HOWEVER….it will probably not work everywhere. I am glad I am not in Philly…..I would be dead if an officer addressed me as HEY JUNIOR….

    • Truthseeker says:

      I would sue them for unjust emotional harm and threat to bodily injury without just cause.

      The thing is, ingnorance is not an excuse. This is always used against us, we can now use it against those that wish to abuse their power.

  2. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hello US Weapon!

    I saw this article at Fox News yesterday; I couldn’t believe the Philly PD stance on open carry in the City and how they blatantly said that if a person in the city was open carrying, then that person SHOULD expect to be inconvenienced SUCH AS being forced to lay on his/her stomach while Open-Carry License was being checked!

    This is gun control by INTIMIDATION.

    I certainly don’t know of any law-abiding citizens that wish to be treated as a common criminal; I’m sure there are those pro-gun activists that WILL intentionally open carry now, but your normal person WON’T, ’cause they just don’t want the hassle — they don’t want their wives, girlfriends, neighbors and children seeing them being treated as a common criminal. I foresee some future litigation over this MESS! Philly PD is trying to throw some PC Salt-Peter into the mix…shame on them for trying to take their citizens liberties away by intimidation!!!!!!!!

    Whatever happened to the “Peace” Officer concept…Oh, that’s right — Andy hired bumbling Barney (Who we all loved), but remember how Barney allowed his position to give him temporary bravado; remember how Andy would let him go only so far, allow the lesson to sink in and reel Barney in as necessary; NOT SO ANYMORE — our “Police” Officers have been sanctioned by their superiors to be testosterone-laden (with Fight, not Flight tendancies). Police Officers are put into Academy at very young ages (no maturity) — thus they are unable to logically think through issues at hand other than the Academy Instruction which cannot allow for all variances of reality.

    ARGHHH…This whole thing up in Philly makes me furious. So, now the “normal” licensed citizens will be afraid to open-carry in Philly which is good news to criminals in Philly — more victims!!!!! –you can be darn sure that criminals will continue to conceal-carry regardless of what the Philly PD says (cause that’s what they’ve always done)…..The criminals up there are laughing because the Philly PD has just paved the way for easier muggings, rapes and whatever else you can think of for them to make victims…

    Today’s “beat” police officer is a DRONE of the political machine. I think it used to be an honorable job; a job of keeping the peace in the locality; not so anymore.

    Best Regards to all…I’ll definately be watching this article closely today as I feel the continual seige against the 2nd Amendment is CRITICAL to stop.

    Richmond Spitfire

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      P.S. I tried to click the video of Mr. Fiorino’s recording, the the link has been disabled because the account associated with the video has been terminated….! Hate to be paranoid, but what’s up with that????

      • USWeapon says:

        Thanks RS. I changed to a different link so hopefully this will work for people the rest of the day.

    • MORGAN: For a man who is a — who is a patriot, who purports to love his country, that was quite shocking disrespect to your president.

      NUGENT: Well, let me put it in official CNN Piers Morgan interview terms, shall I?…My limey friend…Anybody that wants to disarm me can drop dead. Anybody that wants to make me unarmed and helpless, people that want to literally create the proven places where more innocents are killed called gun-free zones, we’re going to beat you. We’re going to vote you out of office or suck on my machine gun. You can take it whichever you —

      MORGAN: Much as I’d love to suck on your machine gun, the whole point — the whole point of your defense is that a lot of people do drop dead precisely because you are armed to the teeth. And you’d like everybody else to be.

      NUGENT: Not true at all. Not true at all.

      MORGAN: Eighty people —

      NUGENT: Piers, write this down —

      MORGAN: You write this down. Eighty people a day die in America from gunshots.

      NUGENT: And 75 of them to 78 of them — statistics by the Uniform Crime Report by the FBI and the U.N. study on violent crime — 78 of those 80 are let out of their cages by corrupt judges and prosecutors who know the recidivism is out of control, know that they’ll commit the crimes again, and they let them walk through plea bargaining, early release, and programs.

      Kiss my ass. Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate.

      Piers, choose one. Do you want a lot of crime? We have it. Gun-free zones. You want less crime? We have that. More people with concealed weapons permit. Why do you guys resist that statistic?

      MORGAN: Well, don’t say you guys.

      NUGENT: You guys. Well, unless you’re playing the devil’s advocate.

      MORGAN: I can play any advocate I like. It’s my show.

      NUGENT: You’re doing a good job. You’re playing the idiot’s advocate here. More guns equals less crime. Period.

      MORGAN: Unless I’m wrong — and I don’t want to kiss your ass —

      NUGENT: And I’ll be sure to let you know.

      MORGAN: — at this point, if you don’t mind. Unless I’m wrong with your argument — well, you’re basically saying that, you know, 90 percent of the gun crime comes from people that —

      NUGENT: It’s 96 percent but go ahead.

      MORGAN: But they still have to get access to firearms. If you had your way, there would be 10 times as many firearms, right?

      NUGENT: Not true at all.

      MORGAN: You want everyone in America to own a gun?

      NUGENT: Not at all. I’ve never said that. And I got to tell you —

      MORGAN: What is your position?

      NUGENT: — and I hope you don’t edit this out. Whenever I’ve done interviews with guys that are inclined to be anti-gun, they always go, well, Nugent, you want everyone to have a machine gun. Nugent wants all the deer dead.

      MORGAN: What does Nugent want?

      NUGENT: Not even close.

      MORGAN: What do you want?

      NUGENT: What I want is the Second Amendment. We the people, free individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms for self- defense. Find fault with that.

      MORGAN: Well, I could find lots of fault with it.

      NUGENT: Name one.

      MORGAN: Well, the reality is you end up with what happened to Gabby Giffords in Tucson.

      NUGENT: That guy had gone through the cracks of the mental health system. That guy had —

      MORGAN: How could he be allowed to get a gun?

      NUGENT: Because he fell through the cracks, and he didn’t — he didn’t qualify to get a gun.

      MORGAN: He fell through the cracks.

      NUGENT: The cracks of the mental health system. Everybody knew — all his friends, his family was afraid of this guy, but they didn’t report it. Nobody — nobody reacted to it.

      MORGAN: When you see a guy like that get open access to firearms because the Constitution that you subscribe — adhere to so much —

      NUGENT: How would you fix that?

      MORGAN: Well, I would certainly make it a lot harder for people like him to ever get near a firearm. And that’s my argument with the gun lobbying is that it’s always very, very aggressive. And even as you’ve just exploded with me, it’s always a violent debate. And it’s always like, [Yelling] “I want the right to shoot anyone that comes near me who threatens me!”

      It’s always about that. This guy was unstable but was able to go and get a firearm because they are freely available in this country. And that’s where I have a problem with it.

      NUGENT: Were you born in England?

      MORGAN: I was born in England.

      NUGENT: Are you familiar with Ireland?

      MORGAN: I am.

      NUGENT: Is Molotov cocktails and C4 explosives — those legal in Belfast?

      MORGAN: They’re terrorists.

      NUGENT: Are those — is that — are those items legal in Belfast?

      MORGAN: Well, I don’t live in Belfast.

      NUGENT: Well, then I’ll go ahead and educate you. They’re banned in Belfast. They’re forbidden in Belfast. Do you think anybody had a hard time getting them? If you want something — how about in New York City it would take me 15 minutes for me to get a submachine gun in New York City from some paroled crack dealer.

      MORGAN: Let me spin the argument. Would you agree drugs then to be freely available?

      NUGENT: Not at all.

      MORGAN: What’s the difference in the argument?

      NUGENT: Because drugs are 100 percent about reducing your level of responsibility, getting high, disconnecting, and I’m a cop. I’ve been a cop for 35 years. I conduct federal raids with the heroes of law enforcement in Texas. In every instance where there is violence, somebody’s high on something, but they’re not always in possession of a firearm. They do it with Buicks and bricks and fire and chainsaws and —

      MORGAN: The guy who shot Gabby Giffords wasn’t high. That wasn’t a factor.

      NUGENT: No, but he was mentally deranged.

      MORGAN: My point about the threat of your argument is you’re saying — there’s a difference, isn’t there, between — you’re saying guns should be made freely available, right?

      NUGENT: No, no, there should be restrictions.

      MORGAN: Because if you — let me ask — let me put something to you. Do you think this is wrong, tell me. They should be made available with some restrictions, but not many, from the gun lobby arguments I’ve read —

      NUGENT: Which —

      MORGAN: — and then actually the reason is if you made them illegal, they would all be freely available anyway. But with drugs, you say do not make them freely available, make them illegal. Even though you know and I know that drives them underground and probably more people get —

      NUGENT: Piers, Piers, I don’t know why you guys either don’t study the information or you just resist it. I think you’re resisting it. In America, where you have more citizens with guns on their person, you have a dramatic reduction in violent crime.

      In those areas called gun-free zones, you have a outrageous increase in the loss of innocent lives. That’s the choice. Which one would you make? And in America, legally owned guns are used millions of times a year to save innocent lives. You certainly don’t believe in calling 911 to stop evil in your home, do you?

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/05/19/cnns-piers-morgan-battles-ted-nugent-guns-says-second-amendment-almost-k#ixzz1NBU8AJgG

  3. If the statistics are accurate (regarding gun free zones vs. lock and load), I think urban areas should give it a try. I understand the reasons they are hesitant; access to weapons in such areas is pretty easy and there could be some initial chaos, but that might be calmed down pretty quick if there are genuine consequences (what Nugent mentioned regarding the justice system release programs) … I guess it’s worth a try (say two years) and after two years if the stats don’t hold up, back (go gun control) or forward (more loose control) it should go.

    There was a period in the 70’s when gypsy cab drivers were being slain at a 3 or 4 to 1 ration (vs. police) … they received no credit for having the most dangerous jobs (many were moonlighting to make ends meet).

    I’m not sure all “lefties” are gun control advocates anymore … but I could be wrong.

  4. I couldn’t hear the tape before. Just heard it now. I have ZERO problem with what the police did in this. ZERO. And I’m no champion of the police. This guy should not have expected anything different. Tying up 2 or 3 cars so some idiot could make a point? Screw him. The only point that guy made (for me) was he was doing his best to be an agitator while tying up police for what? He made his point–if you act like a dick you’ll probably catch a little hell. Great, point made. Now get a life. Sorry, this wasn’t a Rodney King moment (where a bunch of cops watched another bunch of cops beat on a guy for X amount of time) … here the cops did nothing wrong. People get excited in tense moments (justifying the language/adrenalin) … the guy was an idiot for doing what he did. Tampled rights? Please.

    • Terry Evans says:

      I can see two sides of this. I agree that this guy probably expected to be confronted by the police, but I also believe that the police SHOULD know the law…after all, they are charged with administering it…

      • Buck the Wala says:

        True, the police most certainly should have known the law. But do you believe the police should be stopping individuals who they see carrying and checking to make sure they have an open carry license?

        • Terry Evans says:

          That would depend on how this individual was acting. If he was minding his own business, and if they knew the law…leave them alone. If he is being a nuisance, then I believe they would be within the law to verify he has the permit…

          • Naten53 says:

            Agreed Terry, but would add if the person was being suspicious.

          • I don’t know … if an open firearm is not the norm in the city a) I wouldn’t assume every cop on the beat knew the law (whether they should or not) and that would be ALL THE MORE REASON TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION as the moron obviously looking to trap the cop in the first place. It was a set-up, people … which is why I think the Philly cops subsequently stating it would be met the same way in the future is fine and dandy. They are telling you not to be a moron. Is it really that important to have a sidearm on you while walking the streets of Philly? Sweet Jesus, think about it.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              The Philly PD is INTIMADATING their citizenship into acting a certain way for their (Philly PD’s) own convenience.

              Shameful (and unlawful)…it really is!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I don’t know, depending on where you are in Philly it could really be that important! :)

              But in all seriousness, I’m in complete agreement. Cop walking down the street in an area where it is not even close to being the norm to open carry sees a guy with a gun (not to mention this area is not exactly free of crime). For his own safety and that of others he stops the guy. Should he have known the law? Certainly. But at the end of the day, the cop should still be able to stop the guy to see if he has an open carry license.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Why should law abiding citizens need a license to engage in a Constitutional protected Right?

              • Mathius says:

                Buck, why should the cops be able to stop you without probably cause? Should they be able to pull over your car just to check if you have a license, assuming that you are not in violation of any traffic laws?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Huge difference between the very common occurrence of driving, and the very uncommon occurrence of carrying a firearm in Philly.

                The cops in this area of Philly put their lives in danger every day. There is a high level of violent crime, often directed at the cops. It is highly unusual to see someone carrying a gun in this area of Philly as well. For their own safety and that of others, shouldn’t the cops be able to check an individual’s license in this climate?

              • Mathius says:

                Check, yes.. maybe. Due to the unusual nature, I’d agree that a certain amount “checking on suspicious activity” is justified. That said, he said he had a permit and was clearly no threat. This was a pissing match with one civilian standing on his rights and on the right side of the law and the cop demanding obedience in direct defiance of the law he was sworn to uphold.

                He should have shown the civilian respect and courtesy from the get-go, while still taking pains to protect himself. Once it was clear the civilian was no threat, he should have looked at the permit. If he was in doubt of the law, he should have called in and asked. The man cited the ordinance, so it should have been easy.

              • Buck, I would agree that it is more than proper for them to inquire into his openly carrying a firearm – in this case/location. But, perhaps we agree it would have gone much better if it had gone something like:

                “Excuse me sir, may we speak with you for a moment or two?”

                “Yes officer, how can I help you?”

                “Sir, it is very unusual to see a person walking in this area openly carrying a firearm. May we ask why you are carrying a firearm?”

                “Sure, I have a permit to carry it officer”

                and on and on.

                Not “Hey junior…….”

                The cops aggravated the issue from the opening of their contact.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes and no Mathius. Neither party involved handled the situation correctly.

                It is a huge, enormous, gigantic problem that the cop did not know the law. Absolutely horrendous. It should have been a more respectful stop by a cop who knows the law, requests to see his license and then moves along. But given the tension at the moment, how does the guy not immediately drop to his knees when faced with a cop pointing his gun at him? The guy was clearly trying to bait the cop a bit as well. Carrying a recorder? Come on, do you really believe this was simply to record him if he had to use the gun? As Ray said, would he first reach for the gun, or the recorder?

            • Terry Evans says:

              I don’t necessarily agree. I would imagine that the police would prefer folks who carry openly verses those who conceal…I would. It kind of puts everything in the open…no? Once the citizen offered a permit, AND the exact statute that allowed him to open carry, the officer should have cooled his heels a bit and acted a bit more professionally…in my modest opinion of course.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Disagreed Charlie. What this man was doing WAS NOT against the Law.

      For example: In some states/localities there are STILL antiquated laws on the books against Homosexuality/Sodomy. If that is indeed the case, then two Gay men, walking down the street holding hands and kissing (agitating) should be treated in the same manner as this man, correct? In the eyes of the officer, they are breaking law, right? Perhaps one of them is extremely large and burly and doesn’t wish to cooperate as he feels he has the right to hold hands with his one true love…and the PO is intimated…so LEO must use brutal force, right?

      Puhlez….His rights were INDEED trampled! Was he doing anything wrong other than walking down the street. If you say yes, then we need to call them “Pre-mediated Prevention Officers for Crime that has not yet been Commited” — isn’t that a crime in off itself; aren’t we considered INNOCENT unless proven GUILTY?

      This Officer is nothing but a brainwashed drone to his PC Leadership; they don’t want guns in the hands of citizens, SO the OFFICER was making a point!!!!

      • If that is indeed the case, then two Gay men, walking down the street holding hands and kissing (agitating) should be treated in the same manner as this man, correct?

        Are you serious? Do you think that holds the same potential danger as a guy carrying a gun in the open? Whether it was against the law or not, the fact it isn’t done with any regularity in Philly is reason enough for the police to a) get nervous and b) confront the man. Once a cop tells you to get on the ground you have a few choices, one of them is to get on the ground and not try and argue (calmly or not) about whatever permit you’re carrying. That is just dumb. In a city where people aren’t carrying guns openly, I think the cops had the right to confront this clown. Better safe than sorry.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Exactly my Point Charlie…IT IS RIDICULOUS!

          This man was DOING NOTHING ILLEGAL; he knew he was doing NOTHING illegal; he was HARRASSED by LEO for absolutely NO GOOD REASON.

          If the law indicates that in order to OPEN-CARRY, you must have a license to do so, the ONLY recourse is for the LEO to kindly ask to see the required license; Philly PD is way out of line for now stating that those open-carrying should expect to be harrassed.

          Try that with the two Gay guys scenario and see the public’s response to that; and I’d be right there supporting the gay guys!!!!

          I prefer not to be SORRY that my liberties have been eroded because of someone else’s twisted belief of what is SAFE! Perhaps, I’d feel a whole lot safer with my sidearm and my abilities to protect myself, family, friends in the 5-10 minutes before it takes LEO rides in on their White Horse, only to get there after we are lying there dead and wounded.

          P.S. Do you (and any other logical person) really, I mean REALLY honestly believe that a person who is bent on criminal activity is going to wear his/her side-arm in an open fashion…No, criminals would prefer to blend in — they don’t come and rob your home in the middle of broad daylight; they do it under the cover of dark…

          • Do you (and any other logical person) really, I mean REALLY honestly believe that a person who is bent on criminal activity is going to wear his/her side-arm in an open fashion…No, criminals would prefer to blend in — they don’t come and rob your home in the middle of broad daylight; they do it under the cover of dark…

            Remember the Congresswoman shot in the head last year? Good, keep that in mind …

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              So then, EVERYONE is potentially a criminal, right? More reason yet for people to open-carry…99% of the Philly Population will be SAFER because of it.

      • This Officer is nothing but a brainwashed drone to his PC Leadership

        So is our entire military … and I suspect they might act the same way. Trampled rights my butt. The guy was looking for trouble (to prove a point). He’s a moron. He proved he could get a reaction. Great. Run him for President on the tea party ticket. See how he does since the rest of them have already failed.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Wrong again Charlie…Our Military cannot be used against, “We the People” as outlined in the Posse Comitatus Act.

          • So, you’re saying that our MP’s have never abused anyone carrying a sidearm in the open? Our military have never acted too rashly and shot first (sometimes killing their own)? We know there are laws … but they aren’t always followed, are they?

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              I’m not aware of any MP’s in the STATES (and not Federal Bases) busting anyone’s chops over a gun. It is not within their charter to Police US Citizens.

              Law-Abiding People will follow the law of the land of where they are; criminals WILL NOT.

              • Terry Evans says:

                RS…there is one instance that I am aware of…Post Hurricane Katrina, guns were confiscated from legal owners by law enforcement AND the national guard.

                Hopefully that will not be repeated…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Terry, One large NG unit refused the order to confiscate. They were not punished for their decision.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                I do remember the Katrina incident and that was absolutely horrible; National Guard can used for policing in the State of where they belong; but Federal Forces (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine cannot).

            • Ah RS,

              But they can and have been used:

              blockquote>A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans.

              By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton’s troopers turned and charged. “Shame, Shame” the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.

              By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, “the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity.”

              (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm)

              I might add – The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) was passed on June 18, 1878.

              It can be done if the government so decides.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                TY Plainly…I wasn’t aware of that piece of negative history. Anything is possible of course…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, the cop pointed a loaded gun at a citizen who was acting within the law. Sadly, the idiot cops didn’t know the law, but applying alittle common sense in the matter would have gone along way, which the LEO’s didn’t do.

      • That was playing it safe, which under the circumstances was fine (with me). The guy had a gun. Why take the chance he reaches for it. Why was he carrying it openly in a city where it isn’t done (normally done, no matter the law). The guy was looking and asking for trouble. Screw him.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          No, that was total overreaction by a cop who did not know the law. That was problem #1, lack of knowledge of the law. #2, the man was not doing anything threatening, which does not lead to the respose given. #3, The abusive language was hardly necessary, which to me is an indication on someone on a power trip.

          The fact that people don’t normally open caryy is irrelevant. If the law is clear, the cops should know it and act accordingly. Saying that seeing someone carry a holstered gun is frightening is assinine.

          • The fact that people don’t normally open caryy is irrelevant.

            Only if you’re posting on a website. Try it in real life/time as a Philly police officer. A guy approaches you with a gun on his hip in Philly (where it’s not done anywhere near routinely).

            If the law is clear, the cops should know it and act accordingly. Saying that seeing someone carry a holstered gun is frightening is assinine.

            You’re back to making as ass of yourself, I see. Why not toss in ridiculous while you’re at it? Guns scare most people (believe it or not) … but especially in cities (where they just aren’t carried out in the open). The cop did nothing wrong. The moron was looking for and got trouble. Screw him.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              “You’re back to making as ass of yourself,”

              I see you can’t seem to lose the third grade name calling mentallity. When you can grow up and act like an adult, your opinions would actually matter more. Beyond that, it’s safe to say we can agree to disagree. We have very different opinions about our Rights.

            • Charlie…I have listened to the whole thing several times. Carrying a gun where it is not normally carried is relevant to a point…I would expect a police officer to ask to see his permit. Opening statement of “Hey Junior” would piss me off to the point that I would say suck eggs flat foot…..he did not need to antagonize the situation. As military, we are trained not to antagonize specific situations…so are police officers. But, a legal person carrying an authorized weapon needs to expect to be checked. I have been asked in a routine traffic stop if I had a weapon in the car and I responded yes I did. I did not say “none of your business, as I would be in my rights to do so but said yes and showed him my permit. Nothing was said after that and nothing happened. Was this a set up? Let’s see…carrying a recorded in ones pocket with it turned on expeting a confrontation….yep…I would say so. But the officer was wrong and so was the individual. Hey Junior is not a way to address anyone and expect a civil retort back…police officer or not.

              I expect policemen to be more professional and more cognizant of the law. But I also expect private citizens to be professional and cognizant of the law.

              • I agree, Colonel. The cop was not PC. I’m willing to give him that leeway “in this instance” specifically because, as it turned out, the citizen was looking for a reaction (thus, his constant questioning of authority throughout) …

  5. :|

  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    @USW – this was the link/audio I posted as a hijack to an article a few days back – thanks for wrapping a story and posting on this.

    First off – I offer my “thanks for your service” to any police officer AND U.S. soldier – both make great sacrifice and place their lives on the line for us. I offer both my inherent respect – even though I know both occasionally do colossally horrible things that sometimes/briefly tarnish all of them.

    Second – I have come to know many over the years that have served – former college roommate now a PA State Trooper, several former frat brothers now serving, several LE types that I train in martial arts with, officers I have met though my field (InfoSec) and investigations, members of InfraGard that I have had as students, and so on – everyone I have met always approaches their job with professionalism, they make every effort to stay current on hot-button issues that they may encounter in day-to-day life and yes – many of them have an additional bravado element – that hard-to-define characteristic that – handled properly leads them to volunteer for SWAT teams / handled improperly puts them in a mode where they itch to “use” the authority they have been granted.

    Third – so we have Philadelphia………

    Philly cops, I suppose like many other big city cops, flap between status quo day to day – or you seem them in the news either being shot at or killed – or one of their own has again egregiously violated the law or abused their power. Thankfully we locally have the “People’s Paper” aka the Daily News that isn’t completely in the pocket of local powerbrokers (The Philadelphia Inquirer, the more stodgy twin of the Daily News is thought to largely be in the pocket of City Hall).

    I do not at all condone how the officer handled the situation. Philly cops are not known to have the greatest people skills or communication skills – generally speaking – they see and they act. While their language is harsh, chock full of expletives, and a bit overbearing at times – that worries far less than they didn’t seem to know a fairly lightning-rod type of law. Not good.

    I do completely 100% approve of an officer stopping a citizen who is openly carrying in a jurisdiction that allows open carrying – in order to validate and check proper documentation and licensing.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Ray…good post and I mostly agree…except (you knew it was coming) for your last part…
      “I do completely 100% approve of an officer stopping a citizen who is openly carrying in a jurisdiction that allows open carrying – in order to validate and check proper documentation and licensing.”

      Isn’t that paramount to profiling? Would you then be in favor of all who “look” Hispanic to be checked for citizenship?

      To me, this goes back to our liberties being slowly taken away…you have no problem for a law abiding citizen who is legally carrying a firearm to be stopped and asked to give papers proving he is legal, but I am guessing that you would have a problem with others (Hispanics, for example) being similarly checked.

      • Terry, carrying a firearm is MUCH MORE POTENTIALL DANGEROUS than a Hispanic without proper papers or gays (as used in an absurd example above). Because there is potential danger (of a nut carrying a gun on his hip because he believes people like USW and many here “assume” no criminal in his right mind would do so {the key being “in his right mind” vs. “nut”}), I don’t have a problem with the police confronting anyone carrying an open firearm in Philly until it is accepted procedure as a norm (not an anomaly).

        • Terry Evans says:

          I never said that one was more dangerous than the other…but I did say, and still maintain that BOTH are civil liberty violations…nothing more. We will have to agree to disagree…I DO have a problem with the Police in this instance…

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Terry – sorry – I’m also okay with DUI checkpoints.

        Is it profiling? Sure it is. Guns are used by people to kill other people. That is their purpose (primary).

        Want to erase the stigma associated with open carry so cops don’t think every person carrying is a crime waiting to happen? Comply with simple requests to show its legit. The Autozone on Frankford Avenue in Philly (where this occured), sits on the edge of some fairly higher crime areas (its on the edge of North Philly – aka “the Badlands”). It simply is not accepted **yet** for folks to openly carry. Whereupon more people openly carry where its allowed then it won’t seem as unusual and meritorious of LE interest.

        As for Hispanics or Hispanic looking people? If someone that looks Hispanic is walking down the street then no – there is not really a reason to stop them and check papers. Lots of people that look or are Hispanic walk down the street and that is considered socially/culturally acceptable (well, in most places I think it is). If I see a van packed to the gills with Hispanic looking people hauling ass North just up from the Mexican border – I’m okay with stopping them and asking for papers.

        Point is – lets put this open carry thing on a dimmer switch – instead of going from dark (no carry) to full on brightness (“woohoo – we got open carry so F all ya’ll and don’t F with me”) – let’s try easing into this a little first shall we?

        • Terry Evans says:

          I can agree with that to a point…but it is either OK to profile or it is not…and I do not agree with DUI checkpoints…just a slight disagreement in the way we see things.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Terry – I guess I get over-sensitive to this “profile” b.s. – we learn by distinguishing differences between things. Its why red looks red and blue looks blue – or – we profile something as red or profile it as blue. Sometimes it has to be situational and contextual.

            Cheers!

            • Terry Evans says:

              Personally, I am fine with profiling…when coupled with common sense, it is effective.

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    I’ll add also that if we’re referring to the Fox news reporting on the “gun owners may be inconvenienced” angle – I’d caution against over-interpretation here.

    If I am coming from dinner on a Friday and have to stop at a DUI checkpoint – that is an inconvenience to me.

    If I am open carrying in an open carry jurisdiction and I am stopped and asked to show my license – that is an inconvenience.

    If I am stopped and have a gun pointed at me, expletives tossed at me and threats of shooting me – that is something a tad bit more than an inconvenience.

    Thoughts?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Ray, I can see your point of view, here’s mine. Checkpoints, can I see your papers, and the last one remind me of another country in another time.

    • If I am stopped and have a gun pointed at me, expletives tossed at me and threats of shooting me – that is something a tad bit more than an inconvenience.

      The first “thought” is that you’ve left out quite a bit of the drama/tension of the moment in your hypothetical. You’re in Philly, remember … high crime rate … cops under pressure … cops not used to people walking around with guns on their hips … it isn’t a common occurrence there. Add that to your scenario and the fact the guy was looking for a reaction by talking instead of heading the warnings … “Get on your knees” … he had to have a conversation before doing so.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Charlie – actually – I am in Philly – have been for 20 years now. My point was that the Philly brass were just being honest in saying that until a Court says its unreasonable search – anyone openly carrying can expect an “inconvenience” of being stopped and asked to show paperwork.

        What is missing from this story is this – in the original reporting Fiorini stated he carried the recorder to record his action should he have to use his firearm.

        WTF right?

        So let me get this straight – in that neighborhood where you were, crime is not unusual. So let’s say someone jumps you and tries to rob you – do you pull the gun first and then the recorder? Or the recorder then the gun? Do you ask the robber to hang for a second while you get the recorder going before you guys shoot it out? :-)

        Fiorini had prior interactions with Philly LE – that is also a fact. So why lie about why you had the recorder? I’d rather he have said “I’ve dealt with these guys before and wanted to capture the moment the next time I thought my rights might get violated”.

        Plus – think of this – the tape picks up with him already having the gun pointed at him – makes me think that he was already recording and was waiting for something to happen……….

        I respect your right Mr. Fiorini – but you could have handled this better also.

    • “If I am stopped and have a gun pointed at me, expletives tossed at me and threats of shooting me – that is something a tad bit more than an inconvenience.”

      #1. Was it legal? All police actions come back to “did they follow established procedure”? A gun was present, but not being brandished. Suspect REFUSED(did not comply) to follow instructions. Officers experience/ignorance lead him to believe he was acting within the law, so even if he had shot him dead, it would be ruled legal.

      #2. It should be against the law for the police to break the law. The officer was in the wrong about the legal actions the citizen was taking. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for citizens and it should be required that police stay current on what is legal. The officers actions were illegal, and everything that followed should favor the defendant, just as evidence found by illegal searches is not allowed.

      #3. Culture shock, in the north east, cursing, dropping F-bombs is pretty common. It’s nothing to hear a educated, cultured lady use such language in every conversation. Have also observed it on the left coast.
      Do not agree with such behavior, think it lowers a society.

      • #3. Culture shock, in the north east, cursing, dropping F-bombs is pretty common. It’s nothing to hear a educated, cultured lady use such language in every conversation. Have also observed it on the left coast.

        Tell me your kidding…

        • cultured………maybe………..like cottage cheese is cultured milk.

          lady? …………. absolutely NOT.

        • Wish I was kidding. Trump got into trouble for using the F-bomb in a speech. It’s common language in many places.
          I think it is an example of our civilization devolving, as did Rome, when the strongest curse words have become acceptable, common language.

          And yes, it was a “lady”, sitting next to her husband. Had kids and were respected members of their community. After picking my jaw up off the table, noticed everyone talked like that there(Pittsburgh), except me. Many years and miles later, I try not to judge a person by their words, but actions.

          • Mathius says:

            The shock value of a curse word is what gives it its power. Once accepted, it’s no longer truly profanity. Once, “darn” would have gotten your mouth washed out with soap. These days it’s the “f-bomb”.. the next generation will come up with something new.

            And the world keeps on turning. Nothing to do with the collapse of civilization.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA, I asked Buck above, but I’d like some more opinions. It has been determined by the SCOTUS that it is an individual right to keep and “bear” arms. Why then do you think that a law abiding citizen should be required a license to engage in a protected right?

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      I think the main reason that I’m OKAY with licensing has to do with Education on how to use, store, clean and general safety of firearms. Sort of like you need to be “certified” that you can use it competently; like a driver’s license for vehicles.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Hi Richmond! You should have also placed competently into quotes “” – gaining a license does very little to ensure competence. It just means you paid $$$ and were able to pass a test at that moment in time. Ongoing compliance and competency validation is simply too expensive.

      • Nonsense RS.

        Being licensed means you passed some minor requirements – in Colorado a CCW permit doesn’t even require you spend time on the range to prove you can safely handle a gun and fire it – even proficiently. Plus I can openly carry – no permit required, plus I can carry concealed inside a vehicle – no permit required. Permits are a waste of time as a criminal cares not about weapons laws.

        Having a drivers license certainly doesn’t mean you can own, maintain or properly operate a motor vehicle – ut just means you passed a test once in a while.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Okay, Okay…I’ve been caught! Well…you can be darn sure that a part of my “personal” approval for my children is that they can competently handle, clean, store and be safe when using firearms — the education extends beyond that with scenarios on how they should act/react in certain situations.

          But, I guess that I’m a bit anal-retentive about it…. In VA, I am also able to open-carry w/o licensing; the only check was when I purchased my toolset.

          • you can be darn sure that a part of my “personal” approval for my children is that they can competently handle, clean, store and be safe when using firearms — the education extends beyond that with scenarios on how they should act/react in certain situations.

            And I am 100% with you here. This is where it all boils down to. It is our responsibility to do just that, for our kids as well as for ourselves.

          • Spitfire,

            Think about the fed. gov. wanting to allow regulating home gardens for food safety. The nanny stater want the government to approve every action, every skill set. When will you have to be certified by the government before being allowed to cook food for your family? After all, you might do something wrong and make them sick.

            There are some jobs/skills that need to be certified, ex. pipeline welders. Some don’t, welding farm equipment.
            For most thing, individual responsibility is the best solution.
            You can safely handle a firearm if you decide you can, handle it improperly in public, there are consequences. And it’s not like it’s hard to find an instructor for those who feel the need.

    • Gman, you’re kidding right? You don’t think you’re going to hear about all the rulings that didn’t say it is an individual right? You don’t think you won’t hear the arguments about there being nothing in that ruling saying you can have “reasonable” restrictions?

      Cmon my friend, you know they will use them to make their point. Trust me, they have an answer or two – they dislike those of us who cling to our bibles or our guns. ;)

      • Mathius says:

        Don’t forget that pesky “militia” bit..

        Don’t worry about clinging to your bible – you can have that, but I’m coming for yer guns!

      • The bibles (are mostly) harmless … until you use them to abuse gays, etc. … but the guns are always dangerous.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Keyboards cause misspellings as well :)

        • Charlie, you had to know this was coming………..

          and so are knives, swords, machetes, pitchforks, etc.

          They aren’t licensed in any way.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Don’t forget Ray with his karate chopping abilities :) sorry Ray, just had to!

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Charlie,

          I think it is better said that Guns have potential to be dangerous…?

          RS

          P.S. Sorry if I seem to be stalking you; but I do feel rather passionate about this subject

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      My position is that you should not be required to have a license to exercise your 2nd amendment right.

      Get rid of fishing licenses, hunting licenses,……..

      Others?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Ray, I can agree with you fully.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          I am of the belief that the constitution is our license, I could be wrong though, as I am evidently a mindless drone…:)

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            You’re wrong.

            The Constitution clarifies which of your rights may not be violated by the government. Your rights, such as they are, are intrinsic to you and independent of the government.

            You need no license to live, yet if the Constitution said you you had the right to life, would you say that the government gave you license to live?

            • Displaced Okie says:

              Damn you pirate!!! While I agree with you, you took the punch out of my “bumper sticker” slogan I was trying to get started….

    • Mathius says:

      You need a license to operate a moving vehicle too (admittedly not a Constitutional right).. the point is magnitude of harm. Operating a car kinetic missile means that I can do a lot of harm if I am not responsible, capable, and properly trained.

      The same applies with guns. The verdict is still out on whether gun laws will be legal or not or to what extent, but the fact remains that they’re very dangerous items and only the “right people” should have access.

      My humble opinion.

      • Who might those “right people” be? Cops? Military?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        So who is to determine who the “right people” are? The right people are the U.S. citizens. That right can be stripped for mental illness and having committed and convicted of a Federal Crime. The limits are set, so why the license? What purpose does it serve?

        • Mathius says:

          What about the blind or nearly so?

          What about people with physical conditions which mean they cannot aim?

          What about, here’s the real ones I worry about, the immature/irresponsible. I have a college buddy (no, not Buck) who burned down his parents’ garage because he was too smoking (smoking what??) and was too lazy/stupid to ensure he put it out. If this guy had a gun, there is a better than even chance that he would have killed someone accidentally already.

          What about minors?

          What about people who are overly aggressive and haven’t been convicted of a federal crime?

          What about people with restraining orders against them?

          What about Ray or Todd? Do you really think they should have a firearm?

          —-

          And then, also, what kind of gun? There’s a big difference between a 9mil and an assault rifle.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            All your questions could be applied to a knife/machete, a car, a baseball bat, a slingshot ect, ect. You have not answered the question, what purpose does a license serve to engage in a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

            • That constitutional right was written a LONG Ass time ago, Gman. And as other constitutional rights have been updated (13 amendment abolishing slavery), maybe it’s time to update the 2nd amendment. Stop being so friggin’ paranoid about everything. Nobody is looking to “crush” your 2nd amendment rights. Not everybody in the UK has a weapon and there aren’t nearly as many violent crimes there as here (sorry, Mr. Nugent, for that stat) … keep your weapon, even keep your right to walk around with it but I would suggest doing so in a more cerebral way than to instigate a situation with a cop patrolling a high crime area where open carrying just isn’t the norm.

      • Terry Evans says:

        Mathius, I have to disagree with “but the fact remains that they’re very dangerous items “. They are not dangerous…in and of themselves, but the individual who wields one may be.

        • but the individual who wields one may be.

          Like the whack job who walked up to a Congresswoman and shot her in the head? Now, was he a common criminal?

          Guns are dangerous … just the bullet they fire that lodges in your head … my god, drink something caffeinated for a change.

        • Mathius says:

          That’s like the bumper sticker “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

          Yes, but guns sure make it whole lot easier.

          People convicted of felony computer crimes can have their right to use a computer removed at a condition of parole – sometimes for life.

          You could say “Computers don’t hack. People hack.” And you’d be right. But having a computer sure makes it a lot easier.

          • Terry Evans says:

            If ones intent is to kill someone, they will find a way, gun or no gun…will it make it easier…maybe, maybe not.

            • Mathius says:

              Will a gun make it easier? Yes, usually.

              I have a lot of training, and I know how much damage a human being can take before coming anywhere close to dying.

              Take away the weapons, fist fights generally aren’t that dangerous.

              • Terry Evans says:

                The key word here is “weapons”. According to Wiklipedia, A weapon is a tool used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of tasks such as hunting, fighting, the committing of criminal acts, the preserving of law and order, and the waging of war.

                No specific mention of a firearm…weapons come in many shapes and sizes, and can be innocuous as a stick, or as obvious as a stick of dynamite…or a firearm.

                Just sayin’ that if someone wants to kill you, then a firearm is far from the only instrument that could be used.

              • Mathius says:

                Yes, and I would argue against your right to wander around with a stick of dynamite also.

                But, that said, if it’s legal, I do not condone the cops harassing you for doing it.

                Me, personally, I carry a pick axe with me whenever I go into the Bronx. People tend to leave me alone. :)

  9. Mathius says:

    He was obviously expecting to be harassed by the Philadelphia police department and looking to embarrass them if they did. This is not necessarily true. According to a statement by him, he always carries a recorder because, in the even that he uses his gun, he wants a record to show that it was necessary.

    I think it makes him a citizen who is no longer willing to blindly accept being mistreated by government representatives that are grossly overstepping their authority. Maybe, maybe not, but a lot of people who were losers in one way or another are the ones who wind up making judicial precedent.. remember that Miranda was just a low level thug.

    treat him like a common criminal for no other reason than because they can. Ehhh… close, but no. They treat him like a common criminal because they think he is a common criminal. They are wrong, of course, but they weren’t doing this “because they can.” They were doing this because they thought he was actually a criminal who had violated the law and that they were (more or less) doing their duty in detaining him, searching him, etc. Then the cop went overboard when he seems to have felt that he wasn’t getting enough respect.

    They are rude, abusive, and have a “god complex,” completely forgetting that they are supposed to be representatives of the government. Can we please, please, through a qualifier in there somewhere? As we know, I’ve been pulled over for speeding more than once – this has been the extent of my experience with LEOs. That said, one was a dick, one businesslike and gruff, and all of the rest professional and courteous, several were nice enough to let me go with just a warning. So, yes, SOME have a god complex. Some are just trying to do their jobs.

    Can you imagine how much worse it likely would have been had this been a black man with baggy pants and a hooded sweatshirt? He would have been shot while “resisting arrest” – and the tape recorder would have mysteriously vanished. The officers probably would have gotten medals.

    Philly Police issued a formal statement saying that citizens who legally open carry their weapon will be inconvenienced going forward. Personally, if I lived in Philly, I’d go out, buy a gun, get a permit, and walk around with it. I would encourage everyone I knew to do these same. F*** them. They enforce the law. They do not get to make the law. I’m litigious and have no qualms about carrying a recorder, or better yet, a hidden camera.

    In other words, if you are not breaking the law in Philadelphia, you can expect to be treated as if you are. Just start chanting “innocent until proven guilty! Innocent until proven guilty! Innocent until proven guilty!” And don’t forget to curl into fetal position when they start kicking you.

    • Can you imagine how much worse it likely would have been had this been a black man with baggy pants and a hooded sweatshirt? He would have been shot while “resisting arrest” – and the tape recorder would have mysteriously vanished. The officers probably would have gotten medals.

      It happened in Oakland where a black man was on the ground with police knees on his back and a standing white office whatcked the guy. The big difference? NO gun on the black man. Now, might the Philly cops done as Matt says? Perhaps … and then they would be murderers (the way the cop in Oakland was–but not convicted, I don’t think–a total abuse of LE) … still, hearing (not seeing) what this clown did in the video seems like an instigation and a half and I don’t have a problem with what the copys in Philly said/appeared to have done.

      • Mathius says:

        I do. Firstly, as Wep points out, they shouldn’t have opened with “Hey Junior” – he’s a grown man. “Sir” will do nicely.

        Secondly, though he was clearly respectful and polite the whole time, the cop might as well have been shouting “respect mah authoritah!” It wasn’t about his safety – it was about who was in charge, and he didn’t like that the man didn’t back down when standing on his rights.

        Police officers are supposed to uphold the law and deal with provocation in a mature and professional manner. Was open carrying provocation? Maybe, maybe not. But he was within his rights. If the cop was in doubt, he could and should! have handled it much better.

        They work for us, not the other way around. We are, to put it in parlance, the clients, and they have to deal with any sh*t we throw at them, not the other way around.

        • They work for us, not the other way around. We are, to put it in parlance, the clients, and they have to deal with any sh*t we throw at them, not the other way around.

          That works de jure, defacto, have a nice try. I understand it “could have” been handled better, the fact the guy was carrying openly in an area where it isn’t done routinely is what makes me allow for the cop to act without political correctness in mind. It wasn’t as if he were carrying a Playboy magazine in his holster. It was a gun.

          • Mathius says:

            Yes, and that justifies the stop, and pointing the gun at the civilian. It does not justify making him lie down in the dirt. It does not justify yelling obscenities at him.

            After the stop, once the mans hands are raise, the cop is out of danger, and has an obligation to act, now, in a PC manner.

            At that point, he should have removed the gun or placed it on the ground. Then he could check the paperwork and check whether the man was correct about the ordinance in question.

            I agree though, that while the cops life is (or may be) in danger, PC goes out the window. Fine. But once safe, he should act like a responsible, mature, and professional adult. He didn’t.

            • But once safe, he should act like a responsible, mature, and professional adult. He didn’t.

              I’m not sure. I didn’t “see” the video. What I heard was the guy being what I call a little prick by questioning everything the cop said. A cop’s authority in a dangerous situation (potentially dangerous especially) should not be questioned. Thsi guy was looking for a reaction. Unfortunately, the cop obliged by I’m not about to hold that against him. You’re not going to find Philly or NY or many suburban cops so PC immediately after having adrenaline flow through them. The guy should’ve clammed up but he wasn’t there to do anything but instigate a situation for his recorder. Fuck him.

              • Mathius says:

                I disagree. I’ll be damned if I have any obligation to be a good little sheep in the face of an overzealous cop. He works for me. Period. I will comply insofar as the law back him up, and to the extent necessary to assure him that I am not a threat (and only then, insofar as I don’t want him shooting me). Past that point, I will stand on my rights.

                (Yes, I am wearing my Jack Sparrow hat right now, but I can’t help it, it’s such a cool hat.. though it does look a bit odd in the office)

              • I think you will be ok as long as you can resist the ARRRGGHHH in the office.

              • Mathius says:

                Choking it back as best I can, Colonel.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “Philly Police issued a formal statement saying that citizens who legally open carry their weapon will be inconvenienced going forward. Personally, if I lived in Philly, I’d go out, buy a gun, get a permit, and walk around with it. I would encourage everyone I knew to do these same. F*** them. They enforce the law. They do not get to make the law. I’m litigious and have no qualms about carrying a recorder, or better yet, a hidden camera.”

      They are not making the law here. The Philly police is saying that, as a matter of policy, if they see someone walking around with a gun, they will stop that individual to check their permit. Until ruled otherwise, this is a completely valid move in a city of 1.5 million with high crime and no culture of open carry. Hopefully…hopefully..this will be done in a much more respectful, streamlined process. If more people obtain permits and open carry in Philly, then perhaps this would become an unreasonable stop and search.

      • If more people obtain permits and open carry in Philly, then perhaps this would become an unreasonable stop and search.

        Yes, if it was the norm, which it isn’t right now (because of enough people have sense enough to not carry them as if they were on a battlefield). So long as it isn’t the norm, people looking to cause police reactions should get a life first, then see if they have nothing better to do than provoke someone into shooting them …

      • Mathius says:

        They’re saying that they’re going to discourage a legal activity by pointing a gun at you, making you get on the ground in the dirt, shouting obscenities at you, etc.

        And, regardless of the fact that there’s no culture of open carry, the police don’t get to determine what is and isn’t acceptable because of the existent culture.

        If something stands out, because of the culture, they can and may check it out, but to declare a policy of harassing (and that’s what it is, make no mistake) law abiding citizens in order to discourage a practice they don’t like, but which is completely legal, they are way over the line.

        • I like the idea of a cop harrassing someone dumb enough to carry a weapon in the open when it isn’t the norm. Good for the cop. Maybe when someone like the lunatic who shot the congresswoman shoots a cop, the lack of PC in the cop’s response will be understood better. Maybe not.

          Either way, nobody is “crushing” the 2nd amendment. That level of paranoia is … dare I say it … ridiculous?

          • Mathius says:

            Agree that it’s an overstatement…

            But I’d ask this.. if there’s no culture of open carry, and that’s what justifies harassment of open carriers, then how can a culture of open carry come about?

            And why should the cops (A) get to determine what is the appropriate culture and (B) enforce that culture?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I wouldn’t say its so much as either determining what is appropriate culture or enforcing that culture, so much as hey, this seems suspicious…

              As open carry becomes more pervasive, its suspicious nature would be reduced up to a point where it is no longer suspicious to justify a stop.

              • Mathius says:

                And how would it ever get to that point when the cops are demanding “papers please” while pointing a gun at you to everyone wishing to exercise this right?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          They are not discouraging a legal activity, they are not crushing the 2d Amendment. They are notifying the populace that they will be checking validity of open carry permits for anyone who is carrying a gun. Let’s see how they proceed — I don’t think they are going to be throwing individuals on the ground and shouting obscenities as a matter of course.

          They police aren’t determining what is acceptably. They are upholding the law — by law, to carry a gun you need a permit. They cops are ensuring that those with guns have permits. Nothing more, nothing less. However, culture does come into play with what is reasonable versus unreasonable – shades of gray, remember? As you say yourself, ‘If something stands out, because of the culture, they [the police] can and may check it out. That is precisely what they are doing.

          • Mathius says:

            They are not discouraging a legal activity Yes they are. They’re saying that they’re going to point a gun at you, force you to lie on the ground, etc.

            If the NYPD said that they’d do to everyone wearing Mets paraphernalia (not sure why anyone would want to in the first place), I think you’d see a severe down-tick in the number of people wearing Mets clothes.

            • Yes they are. They’re saying that they’re going to point a gun at you, force you to lie on the ground, etc.

              One cop did, not “they” … other cops responding to his call for backup assume a bad situation in the first place and had to act on his behalf. So, you have one instance of a single cop acting without PC in a potentially deadly situation. And, as it turns out, it was a setup. Get over it.

              What’s your problem with the Mets? Aside from the fact they’re playing in a capitalist exploitation of the citizenry stadium, it’s no worse than where the skankies play … and at least the Mets play major league rules (not that T-ball, designaed hitter garbage) … Lets go Mets!

      • Thanks Buck…was trying to figure out how to say it.

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I am a little surprised we haven’t had an article on the awful Indiana Supreme Court decision here at SUFA. We could call it “crushing the 4th amendment”.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/15/barnes-v-state-of-indiana-2011/

    • Mathius says:

      I brought this up the other day.. I wouldn’t worry about it.. SCOTUS is going to crush that ruling.

      • When might that be do you think? 1 year? 3? 5? Longer?

        Until then the citizens of Indiana have their rights abused some more?

        Any case will take time to move up to SCOTUS. Then they have to agree to even hear it…..

        • Mathius says:

          It’ll get fast-tracked, I imaging.. probably a year or two.

          Yes, I agree.. but that’s how the system works. Sometimes it sucks. What can ya do?

      • Naten53 says:

        I can’t make up my mind which side of the scotus will rule what. Right now I can see both sides ruling for and both sides ruling against.

    • You know there’s a problem with the government when the very people sworn to uphold the constitution abandon it in favor of “public policy” …

    • But the court rulings are among the first to affirm the police state. And they open us up to a system where the police have carte blanche to do as they please.

      Think this is an overreaction? Tell it to the citizens of Newton County, Ind., whose sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., told the Mike Church radio show on Thursday that

      random house-to-house searches are now possible because of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling.

      “(H)e emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house (sic) checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal,” according to a posting on Church’s website.

      http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/freedom-concerns/supreme-courts-affirm-the-police-state/

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t welcome it.

        Adding, I don’t think the ruling allows them carte blanche to search any house they want – it means that we can’t foribly stop them.

        If they’re in violation, we still have legal resource. You can still sue them for violating your rights, and that would be a very messy class action for any police department.

        Plus, if they abuse it, the SCOTUS will have to push back and they’ll be forced to err on the side of caution given the very clear text of the Bill of Rights.

        Adding, while you may not be allowed to use force to stop police from entering your home, I think the ruling is silent about leaving sundry “automated defenses” around your home. I, for example, have a Malaysian tiger trap near every entrance to my home. Then there are the motion sensor turrets, the guard dog, the claymores…

        • Matt,

          Until SCOTUS hears a case, this is Ind. law, confirmed by their supreme court. That means that sheriff can do random searches and no one can stop him. It’s not a big deal, unless you are one of those “free people” having to deal with it…

          • Mathius says:

            I don’t think you’re interpreting this right (or maybe I’m the one whose confused?). My understanding is that you’re no longer legally permitted to physically prevent the police from performing an illegal action (entering your home w/o a warrant).

            You’re suggesting the opposite – that it’s legal to enter your home sans warrant and that you it’s illegal to resist (de facto because they’re operating legally).

            I think you’re wrong. I think they still need a warrant, but when they don’t have one, and are operating illegally, you can’t stop them. I don’t think this precludes the ability to sue after the fact.

            From the article

            The Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, has ruled that the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers is trumped by public policy.

            They didn’t rule the police were within their authority. It just ruled that the appellant was acting illegally.

            Ok, yea, I’m right:

            We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

            Note that they say illegal police entry. So they didn’t authorize warrantless entry – that’s still against the law and the sheriff can do no such thing.. legally, at least.

      • Truthseeker says:

        I love it! Giving up freedom for a small sense of “security”. As if the criminals care about this law. If criminals feered consequences/police, they would not commit crimes. Once sheeple wake up and realize the the Police do not prevent anything (only reactionary), will they realize how much freedom they gave up for no reason.

  11. CCRKBA Calls Milwaukee, WI Police Chief’s Remarks ‘Outrageous’
    * Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.

    Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:21pm EDT

    BELLEVUE, Wash., April 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee
    for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today criticized Milwaukee, WI Police
    Chief Ed Flynn for his open defiance of the State Attorney General’s office in
    a controversy over open carry of firearms.

    Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has stated that it is legal in Wisconsin for
    citizens to carry guns openly in a peaceful manner. However, Chief Flynn is
    ordering his officers to “take down” citizens, “put them on the ground” and
    disarm them, and “then decide whether you have a right to carry it.”

    The situation should alarm all Wisconsin citizens, whether they own guns or
    not, said CCRKBA Legislative Director Joe Waldron, because it places police
    officers and private citizens in a deliberately confrontational position.
    Also, he added, Flynn’s approach raises serious constitutional questions
    because of the state’s clearly defined “right to keep and bear arms for
    security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose” under
    Article I, Section 25 of the state constitution.

    “Because Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry,” Waldron said, “the only
    way for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms
    is to carry handguns openly. Chief Flynn should not assume he or his officers
    have the authority to decide who can and cannot exercise that right. His
    attitude is outrageous.”

    “Attorney General Van Hollen was correct in his statements about the legality
    of open carry,” Waldron continued, “and what does it say about a police chief
    when he publicly announces that he’ll do things his way and to hell with what
    the attorney general says?”

    Waldron also said a plan, announced by State Rep. Leon Young, a Milwaukee
    Democrat, to draft legislation that bans open carry, “is inviting court
    challenge.”

    “If you cannot carry openly, and you cannot carry concealed,” Waldron
    wondered, “how can law-abiding Wisconsin citizens exercise their state
    constitutional right to keep and bear arms? We encourage Rep. Young to address
    that issue to the state Supreme Court before he pushes ahead with that
    scheme.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/22/idUS233652+22-Apr-2009+PRN20090422

  12. Wanna know why I dislike cops so intensely? Read this and notice the “for your own good” lie. That’s the one that will send me completely over the edge. Worse than the liars claiming not to understand the simple language of the Second Amendment. I’m not 100% sure that “Susan” is still around- whether she deleted her profile or just blocked me. Either way let me know if you can’t see her comments- I copied the whole thread just in case. It is just too educational to let fade away.

  13. @Matt:

    Listen to me, Jack Sparrow … I seriously doubt you’d pull something as stupid as this clown in Philly did. You’d know better than to instigate a potential shooting. This guy was there for a political agenda. You wouldn’t do that. So it isn’t the same thing (you’re statement that “you’ll be damned” … now take the hat off and sit down … you’re being very disruptive in class again …

    • Mathius says:

      I absolutely, positively would. Though it’s more likely that my wife would shoot me for this than any police officer.

      I have a lot of problems with police acting like they’re in charge instead of serving. If the law backs me up, I’ll butt heads with authority.

      I’m just stubborn like that.

      Adding, this guy is going to have a beautiful lawsuit.

      • Though it’s more likely that my wife would shoot me for this than any police officer.

        Your wife would be right. It is an assinine thing to do (what this ass clown did in Philly). If you really want to challenge authority (to prove a point), the next time you’re stopped for speeding, don’t wait to see what the cop says. Just wait for him to approach and say, “What’s your problem, dude? I was exercising my right to speed. I’m choosing to break the law. Now, right me the ticket and shove off.”

        • Oops “write” me the ticket…

          • Mathius says:

            I should try that.. can’t have much worse luck that I seem to be having lately..

            Then again, it becomes tough to plead down when the cop tells the DA to throw the book at you..

        • Terry Evans says:

          The difference here is that speeding is against the law, and (hypothetically) Mathius is guilty (has exhibited reasonable suspicion to warrant a stop)…this guy was 100% within his rights, and the LEO was WRONG. If the PPD would simply have admitted that, and furthered that statement with the fact that all PPD officers would receive training to that end, then the whole matter would already have been forgotten.

          • , and furthered that statement with the fact that all PPD officers would receive training to that end, then the whole matter would already have been forgotten.

            But instead, because they believed the office (PC aside) did nothing wrong … it’s an attempt to “crush” our 2nd amendment rights?

            I don’t agree it was wrong, for one thing. The guy was setting up the cops in the dumbest possible manner (using a gun to do so). It isn’t a routine gesture on the streets of Philly. I don’t blame the cop at all … add the fact the guy was constantly questioning the cop’s authority (or talking back) and screw him six ways to sunday. he was a jerkoff.

            • Mathius says:

              What about being accused of a crime means you lose your Constitutional right to voice your opinion in whatever manner you wish?

              Mouth off. There’s not a fraking thing the po-po’s are legally allowed to do about it.

              Just because you’re accused of a crime does not give them the right to abuse your rights.

              • Bama dad says:

                :: SIGH ::

                Will you quit saying things that I agree with, it is confusing me.

              • Mathius says:

                Sorry. I know how uncomfortable this must be for you. Personally, I get these really awful nose bleeds whenever Black Flag starts agreeing with me.

              • Just because you’re accused of a crime does not give them the right to abuse your rights.

                In a perfect world, maybe … but you’re taking it out of context for theoretical purposes. The facts ARE RELEVANT. The cop didn’t know the law, the kid was doing this to instigate for his recorder, he chose a high crime area and it was not something routinely seen on the streets of Philly. He’s lucky he wasn’t killed, the putz. Common sense says it was plain stupid. I don’t blame the cop at all (or they’re subsequent take on the situation). Sometimes when you look to stir a pot, it boils over (think SUFA for a second) …

              • Mathius says:

                Which is why I ok the stop and the gun pointing. But once he established that he wasn’t a threat (at it was clear very early that this was the case), it should have gone back to civil.

                I’ll make allowances for practical concerns such as the safety of the officer, but I will not allow for him to be a bully when there is not credible threat.

                And, further, as I’ve said, there is no justification for leading off with “hey junior” to a grown man. Respect works both ways.

                —-

                Cops unstrap their guns and approach your car with an hand on their holster when they pull over your car. Do they not? Because they don’t know if you’re going to be a problem. And that’s fine. But once you call them sir and are polite and hand them your license, they buckle that thing back up and have an obligation to act professionally.

            • Terry Evans says:

              I never said this guy was smart…just in the right…the cops in this instance were wrong, plain and simple.

              • Let’s “ASSUME” you are right (and the cops were wrong). Is that really “crushing” your second amendment rights or one cop acting wrong? (and I don’t think for a second he did much wrong at all)

              • Mathius says:

                No, but his department backing him up and making it policy is certainly a step in that direction (though I agree, it falls far short of “crushing the second amendment”)

                Adding, I wonder if/when SCOTUS will see this one, too…

              • Terry Evans says:

                I don’t know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth…I never said it was “crushing” anything. The only claim of my own is that this was a civil liberties violation, nothing more, nothing less. It is my opinion that the police officer in this instance was wrong. In your opinion, he was not wrong (at least that is what I am gathering). OK fine.

            • USWeapon says:

              I have read your babble all day around this Chaz….

              I don’t care what the guy had on his mind. The fact is that he was OBEYING THE LAW. Did he go and pick a fight with a cop? Nope. Did he wave his gun around? Nope. He simply exercised his right to openly carry a gun on his hip and he assumed (correctly I might add) that some jerkoff cop would harass him about it. How obeying the law is interpreted as “setting up the cops” is baffling. Had the cops done what they are supposed to do, there would be nothing to set up! He would have continued on to Advance, got his auto part and went home. But because this guy has been harassed for this before (the PPD took his gun away for 5 months before they admitted they were wrong the previous time) and takes steps to record if he is harassed again, you dismiss the actions of the cop and call the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN the bad guy. It is that mentality by people who are willing to set aside reason to serve their own agenda that leads to where we have gone.

              So explain why, Charlie. Why was this cop justified in telling a law abiding citizen to get on the ground in the dirt? Is that your position? That it is acceptable to be harassed by police officers simply because they are police officers? Or is your position that it is OK for police officers to treat some people this way but not others? The way that this cop treated him was “OK” because in your mind the citizen had an agenda?What if he didn’t have that recorder in his pocket and it was recorded by a passerby, would you still think the way this cop acted was OK? Would you be willing to be placed on the ground when you have done nothing wrong on a cold day in NY?

              Your position is indefensible, but that has never stopped you from making inane arguments before, so carry on. And this single incident isn’t what crushed our 2nd amendment rights. It is just another small chip off the block. But I should have assumed that this nuance would be lost on you. I will try to break it down a little further for you slower folks next time ;)

              • What if he didn’t have that recorder in his pocket and it was recorded by a passerby, would you still think the way this cop acted was OK?

                Absolutely. It is your practice and pride that requires you ignore the facts. So keep doing it. I won’t go slower for you here (again) and repeat what I’ve written 2 dozen times. The facts in the case permit me to give the cop leniency and the instigator nada.

                ON a cold day in New York. My uninformed, blind friend, I have been harassed by the police in NY … the last name ends in a vowel (surely you know what those are?) … in my humble experiences with the law, it is best to let them get their rocks off and deal with it later. I never chose to antagonize them like this moron in Philly did so I can’t speak to being an asswipe with the law.

                By the way, I’ll remind you, since you seem to have forgotten another fact, the title of your long-ass post (and this is somewhat shorter than your usual tirades against the left), is “Crushing the Second Amendment” …

              • USWeapon says:

                By the way, I’ll remind you, since you seem to have forgotten another fact, the title of your long-ass post (and this is somewhat shorter than your usual tirades against the left), is “Crushing the Second Amendment” …

                And as I regularly do since you can only make the title a short length, I continued the title sentence in the first line of the article, “one small incident at a time”

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Speaking of search and siezure, I just heard that people will be going through a TSA checkpoint and scanner to get on the Star Wars ride at Disneyland. WTF, can this thing fly into skyscrapers?

  15. Is anyone really surprised that a person who subscribes to the ethic supporting Communism has no problem rationalizing the use of police force against an innocent citizen?

    Brutes always support other brutes, as long as they are not the victim.

    • Yes, Plainly … “exterminate the brutes” (name the book that’s quoted from and win a cookie.

      The 2nd amendment is our first goal … crush that and we have you by the short hairs …

      sweet jesus, how do you people function with an entire world looking to take you down all the time?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        sweet jesus, how do you people function with an entire world looking to take you down all the time?

        The problem is, that there are alot of people who would like the 2nd Amendment gone. You blindness to this fact is a sign that you likely support them.

      • Mathius says:

        Heart of Darkness! What kind of cookie?

        • Figures, the god damned lefty wins the Oatmeal cookie.

          Gman … I don’t support the “crushing” of the 2nd amendment, but if makes you feel more paranoid (and thus, better), feel free to assume that. Add to the ever growing list of conspiracy theories you seem to hunger for.

          • Mathius says:

            Thanks.. I assume you made it with a hint of cinnamon?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I feel better, thanks :) Conspiracy theories tend to be proven as fact (except the really dumb ones) over time.

            • That, I think, depends on just who is making the determination as to what is “really dumb” … now, taking the cop scenario in the video to the “crushing of our 2nd amendment rights” seems batshit dumb to me … but what do I know. I don’t believe the US conspired to fly jets into the word trade center so we could go to war.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I don’t believe the US conspired to fly jets into the word trade center so we could go to war.

                I hope they didn’t! In a recently released Govt document, Cheney maintained a USAF stand down order during the events that day. I’m sure it was for GOOD reasons.

                And why did Silverstein (Silverman, whatever, the owner of the towers) admit on TV that he gave the order to drop building 7?

                Prior to 9-11, no metal framed building has ever collapsed as a result of fire. Just some neat facts about that day.

            • Mathius says:

              wow.. there’s a factoid I’d love to see proven.

              OK, let’s play a game. I’ll name a conspiracy theory that was either proven false or is unfalsifiable but which is almost certainly false, and you name one that was “proven as fact.”

              We’ll take turns, ok?

              The moon landing was faked. FALSE

              Ok, you go.

      • Huh? What are you yelling at me for Charlie? I think you musta meant JAC or somebody?

        lol…Quite honestly if this guy didn’t expect a Philly cop to have an interaction with him over the open carry then he wasn’t thinking clearly. Open carry is common in my state yet if I walked down the streets of Denver carrying openly I EXPECT the cops to stop me and have a chat.

        The problem Charlie, whether you want to admit it or not is that the cop approached with an antagonistic attitude because he thought he had this guy breaking the law and would be taking him to jail. He interacted in a way common for his behavior patterns from working the streets.

        Was the idiot looking for a confrontation – it’s very possible. Do I care? Nope. As long as he was legally in the right he can look for whatever activity he wants – though stupid to do it in such a situation. The cop was just wrong in his approach.

        Now, go yell at the right person Charlie.

        • Sorry, Plainly. (I did admit it was JAC, though )…. so there.

          I agree the cop was a bit of a moron, but under the circumstances, I’d allow for it. The guy clearly was looking to set him up. He’s lucky he wasn’t clipped for his assinine actions. The facts are relevant. They’re always relevant. The cop maybe should be reprimanded and given some catch-up on gun laws in Philly, but that’s it. He does it again, fire him. But for this? An instigated instance? Screw that moron for looking for it.

          • Okay, that’s better – thank you. I get myself in enough trouble without needing anyone’s help. :)

            Let be clear here people – if I had been the cop (remember now I once was) I would have stopped him too and I’d have had my gun in hand and while maybe not pointed directly at him (I can’t say without actually being in the situation) it would have been damn close. He would NEVER have had a chance to draw his. Hell, I’d have probably shot the guy just for touching it without my specific instructions to do so.

            This dude was in a very dangerous situation and could have ended up dead – period.

            Now as to said cops attitude, while I admit to using that very term towards subjects (“junior”) I never started out an interaction that way. I would have started out with a “Sir, ……..” comment of some kind and worked from there. I would not have tolerated him ignoring my instructions at all while I was trying to decide if I had a bad guy, nutjob, or just unthinking citizen on my hands.

            The dude was STUPID. The cop was an ASS. It’s just plain luck it turned out as it did and nothing worse happening.

    • JAC, I mean (above) … how patriotic of you. For the hell of it, where did you stand on the Rodney King situation?

      • Police brutality.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        Out of curiousity, have you ever seen the unedited Rodney King tape? No doubt that there was unnessary use of force going on–at the end( odd that the clever editing that the media did cost more lives, injuries and damage than the actual incident)…If the tape had been edited to leave off the end for as long as they left of the beginning, it would have looked like an appropriate level of force. In fact, in court the whole video was shown and that is why only one or two officers were convicted.

        • In fact, in court the whole video was shown and that is why only one or two officers were convicted. They weren’t convicted because the jury pool was rigged (change of venue to police laden Simi Valley). The riots were caused by the absurd non-convictions … there’s no defending what the police surrounding the 4 thugs beating on King forever did (in my opinion, those watching were equally as guilty). Sorry, this was a no brainer and a big ass blemish on the justice system.

          • Mathius says:

            Police laden Simi Valley is right.. but you gotta love the 118.. man, you could floor it on that road and never have a problem.

            I think I topped out my old volvo at 120-something.. boy, those were the days.

          • Displaced Okie says:

            No they weren’t convicted because ( if you watch the whole video) all they didn’t go over the line until the end. At the beginning of the incident Mr. King is tased(twice I think) but still keeps coming at the officers, eventually they subdue him. He goes to the ground and then finally becomes compliant. Once he went to the ground one of the officers kicks him, at this point everything becomes excessive and this is why the officers that participated in the incident before that point weren’t convicted.

    • Terry Evans says:

      No surprise whatsoever…

  16. I’ve been arrested (shockingly, I know) … and it wasn’t for smarting off … you know how lawyers tell you to clam up once you’re arrested? They’re right. And you know what else? Don’t go provoking cops (especially in potentially dangerous situations/high crime rate area, etc.) into taking a shot at you. I once had a little traffic incident on 3rd Avenue and 33rd (literally, across the street from where I would eventually have a bookmaking office on 33rd and 3rd). I got out of my car (very angry), the other guy got out of his car. I approached him. He showed me his badge and said, “Back off, I’m a cop.” Did I want to slap him in the chops? Yeah. Did I? Nope. I was with my 2nd wife at the time. I got back in the car and clammed up and drove away grateful the guy showed me his badge before I did something stupid (or said anything else). It’s common sense, folks … register your complaint an hour after the incident or whenever you want, not when a cop (PC incorrect or not) is pointing a gun at you. Now, add the fact this asshole had a recorder on him … and I have ZERO sympathy for him or his cause and I’m way more lenient with the cop in that scenario (even if he’s a moron).

  17. Mathius says:

    Today’s very interesting.. normally we break along party lines:

    Buck, Todd, Charlie, Ray and myself against the rest of you lunatics..

    There seems to be a lot of fence jumping today.

    Very interesting.. very interesting..

    • Buck, Todd, Charlie, Ray and myself against the rest of you lunatics..

      Priceless … you get another cookie.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Lunatic…is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish, unpredictable; a condition once called lunacy.
      I’m not mentally ill (not diagnosed anyway), but…dangerous (occaisionally), unpredictable (I hope so), foolish (not as much these days)…

      • Brain Damage
        (Waters) 3:50

        The lunatic is on the grass.
        The lunatic is on the grass.
        Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
        Got to keep the loonies on the path.

        The lunatic is in the hall.
        The lunatics are in my hall.
        The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
        And every day the paper boy brings more.

        And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
        And if there is no room upon the hill
        And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
        I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon.

        The lunatic is in my head.
        The lunatic is in my head
        You raise the blade, you make the change
        You re-arrange me ’til I’m sane.
        You lock the door
        And throw away the key
        There’s someone in my head but it’s not me.

        And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
        You shout and no one seems to hear.
        And if the band you’re in starts playing different tunes
        I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon.

        “I can’t think of anything to say except…
        I think it’s marvelous! HaHaHa!”

    • Naten53 says:

      I am offended, I prefer the term ‘crazies’

    • Pretty easy to jump a one strand barbedwire fence with the top four strands broke…..

      The “Hey Junior” is what I am concerned about. But I guess that goes with the attitude and what is considered normal language in Philly. We carry guns everywhere here so I do not understand the “not normally done” but that is Philly, I reckon.

      However, “Hey Junior” in any situation here will get you more trouble than you ask for…

      • Mathius says:

        Agree, sir!

        Straight out the gate, the cop was unprofessional. The situation could and should have been handled far better on his part – set up or not.

        • Ok…..now. One more Raptor point for Mathius ( Total of three now…see below).

          • Mathius says:

            BWA HAHAHAHA HAHAHA

            I would like to redeem for one Rapto-Shark with the optional laser attachment.

            I owe a certain Dread Pirate a visit.

            • Nice choice,,,,,,on the way. BTW…I took the liberty to send a Clandestine Rapto-Shark with dual laser attachement and GPS guidance system…..non traceable.

              • Mathius says:

                GPS is a good call.. I have a, er, Jewish, sense of direction. Wandering in the ocean for 40 years isn’t out of the question for me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                a Jewish sense of direction!? Bite your tongue! Your inability to find your way out of a paper bag has nothing to do with being Jewish. After all, I have an impeccable sense of direction.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps it has to do with being from LA??

              • Mathius says:

                Right. But Moses with 100,000 Jews, collectively couldn’t figure out how to walk in a straight line to get out of a dessert for forty years. You’d think one of them would suggest following the sunrise?

                No sir, this is one of those valid stereotypes.

                And that is yet another reason why I’m the token Jew of SUFA and you aren’t.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Fair enough I guess. I’ve gotten used to people telling me I’m not really Jewish anyway.

                But maybe the whole lost in the desert thing had more to do than Moses refused to pull over and ask for direction. Typical man driving through the desert.

              • Mathius says:

                Right, because Tzipporah wouldn’t have smacked him upside the head and made ask.

    • Marine Survives Two Tours in Iraq, SWAT Kills Him

      Tim Cavanaugh | May 16, 2011

      “Please send me an ambulance and you can ask more questions later, please!”

      Guerena tells the dispatcher that her husband had returned home about 6:30 a.m. after work and was sleeping.

      Prompted by the dispatcher, Guerena says her husband was shot in the stomach and hands.

      The dispatcher asks Guerena to put her cheek next to her husband’s nose and mouth to see if he’s breathing, but she replies in Spanish that her husband is face- down.

      The operator tells Guerena to grab a cloth and apply pressure to his wounds, but the wife responds frantically: “I can’t! I can’t! There’s a bunch of people outside of my house. I don’t know what the heck is happening!”

      A dispatcher asks if the people outside are the SWAT members. “I think it’s the SWAT, but they … Oh my God!” Guerena says.

      A dispatcher asks that she open the door for the SWAT, but Guerena replies that the door was already opened by police.

      “Is anybody coming? Is anybody coming?” she asks.

      The operator tells Guerena help is on the way, but they’re still trying to figure out what happened.

      “I don’t know, that’s it, whatever I told you, that’s it,” Guerena says.

      Just after the five-minute mark, Guerena’s end of the line goes silent.

      The two dispatchers spend about four minutes talking to each other and calling out for Guerena while trying to figure out if the call is coming from the same residence where the warrant was served. At the end of the 10-minute 911 call, a dispatcher says she has confirmation that Guerena is outside with deputies on the scene.

      Jose GuerenaThis is from Arizona Daily Star reporter Fernanda Echavarri’s effort to piece together the death of Jose Guerena, 26, at the hands of a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team. Guerena, who joined the Marines in 2002 and served two tours in Iraq, was killed just after 9 a.m. May 5. Guerera had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at a local mine when his home was invaded as part of a multi-house crackdown by sheriff’s deputies.

      Like enemy of the state Osama bin Laden, Guerena died with his wife close by. Widow Vanessa Guerena, who hid with her four-year-old son when sheriff’s deputies raided the home, fills in detail that has been slow to come from Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik’s office:

      “When I came out the officers dragged me through the kitchen and took me outside, and that’s when I saw him laying there gasping for air,” Vanessa Guerena said. “I kept begging the officers to call an ambulance that maybe he could make it and that my baby was still inside.”

      The little boy soon after walked out of the closet on his own. SWAT members took him outside to be with his mother.

      “I never imagined I would lose him like that, he was badly injured but I never thought he could be killed by police after he served his country,” Vanessa Guerena said.

      The family’s 5-year-old son was at school that morning and deputies say they thought Guerena’s wife and his other child would also be gone when they entered the home.

      Guerena says there were no drugs in their house.

      Deputies said they seized a “large sum of money from another house” that morning. But they refused to say from which of the homes searched that morning they found narcotics, drug ledgers or drug paraphernalia. Court documents showing what was being sought and was found have not been made public. A computer check on Guerena revealed a couple of traffic tickets and no criminal history.

      Tucson KGUN’s Joel Waldman says the SWAT team prevented paramedics from going to work on Guerena for one hour and fourteen minutes.

      The sheriff’s department maintains that Guerena was holding an AR-15 when the paramilitary force fired 71 bullets in his home, but other key parts of the government story have collapsed. While PCSD initially claimed Guerena fired the weapon he was alleged to have been holding, the department now says it was a misfire by one of the deputies that caused this deadly group panic inside a home containing a woman and a toddler:

      A deputy’s bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot, [PCSD spokesman Michael] O’Connor said.

      http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/marine-survives-two-tours-in-i

  18. @Matt: We didn’t see the “victim” in this Philly scenario. He might’ve called the cop “Sir” with a big sarcastic smile on his face. Just from what I heard on the audio, he pissed me off and I’m no fan of the police in general. I know how I used to react when somebody was purposely pushing my buttons. They got what they were asking for. Screw’em.

    • Mathius says:

      Doesn’t matter. That badge and that authority come with a responsibility to take sh*t form jerks. You don’t have to tolerate a threat to your safety, but that’s it. You are not permitted to harass someone just because they’re a smart-ass.

      Remember the Harvard professor who was arrested in his own home? The cop was dead wrong. He should have left when it was clear he was in the wrong – same thing here. Instead, he got into a pissing contest and abused his power because he was too proud and too irresponsible to wield that authority / power in the correct manner.

      • Mathius says: “because he was too proud and too irresponsible to wield that authority / power in the correct manner.”

        And, therein, lies the foundation to most problems. Two….yes TWO Raptor points *** to Mathius to be redeemed at his convenience.

        *** A total of three Raptor points entitles the user to one free use of the Raptor of choice for a day. (Might I suggest the use of para-raptors…swift, silent, deadly and highly mobile).

      • I totally (dude voice on that totally there) understand … but … de jure is a perfect world and Philly is far from perfect. That kid was totally pushing buttons (recorder!!!!) … I’m with the cop on this all the way. Maybe he gets reprimanded … nothing more. Remember the cop was taking shit too. I wouldn’t take shit (that kind of purposeful shit) in a word processing center (and never did) … when someone asks for it, my feeling is give it to them in spades.

        • Terry Evans says:

          I would not necessarily want the cop in question punished. A simple public apology and admitting he was wrong would do just fine…the entire department should be included as issuing the apology…

          • That would work for me, too, I guess. I know you didn’t claim it was “crushing” 2nd amendment rights, but that is the title of USW’s post. I think it’s a stretch to assume that. The cop may’ve been a moron and the department too defensive, but I can’t get beyond what this moron with the recorder was out to do in a very tense environment. Philly ain’t Minot, North Dakota.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Why can’t we all just get along!!!!

            • USWeapon says:

              @Charlie

              Again I will point out that Crushing the 2nd Amendment was a sentence completed in the first line of the article…. one small incident at a time. As we move down the timeline, we have the PPD openly telling the public that they will inconvenience all gun owners going forward. They openly say that they will be placing them on the ground while they check things out. THAT is a step in crushing the 2nd Amendment.

              I really don’t know why I bother explaining these things to you. You are too smart to not understand what I am saying, yet you repeatedly make childish statements berating the title of the article as if you don’t. So here I am again explaining the obvious to you even though you are purposely ignoring it to attempt to win debate points. You lose points simply for playing dumb ;)

              • Terry Evans says:

                US…Charlie is a professional pot stirrer. He does not miss an opportunity to tweak anyone. I believe that if we take his comments in that context, we’ll all be better off. We are looking for differing opinions on this site, and his sure are different!!!, to me at least!

                I do understand your angst though, his attacks on you seem personal…hey Charlie…CEASE WITH THE NEGATIVE WAVES!!!

              • USWeapon says:

                @Terry

                No worries, I don’t really have any angst. I understand he is a pot stirrer. But every now and then I have to call out the fact that he stirs the pot by inserting statements that I didn’t make or by blowing what I did say out of proportion.

                I also understand that Charlie thinks that I am a far right whacko who is uniformed, unintelligent, unenlightened, unrealistic, and uncooth ;)

              • It is better to be thought a fool (or dumb) and remain silent, than to speak (or write) and remove all doubt.
                :)

              • USWeapon says:

                Being silent was never your forte, my friend

              • gmanfortruth says:

                You are the Master Show Off :lol:

              • Terry Evans says:

                OK, so I have uncloaked myself and have allowed everyone to see me for the “fool” that I am? So be it, perhaps I should have remained silent. But I am a pot stirrer as well…just in the opposite direction.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think it is safe to say that USW and Charlie will not be going on any dates together. :)

  19. D13 is correct (as usual).

    The best place to deal with this is city council.

    I’ve stated in the past, that if you want to have an impact in politics, it is local politics.

    The City council pays these clowns. You can stop the clowns by putting to risk the jobs of the councilors.

    Suing cops only costs taxpayers more money.

  20. The advocates for gun control argue that they do not want guns in the hands of “crazy” people.

    However, gun control does not prevent guns getting to “crazy” people.

    Therefore, gun control is not the answer -period. It is thinking better about how the community deals with “crazy” people, and stop making laws that oppress free people.

    • It is thinking better about how the community deals with “crazy” people,

      As in charitable contributions into the research since you wouldn’t want to be taxed for the same reason? Or what about the institutions that house “crazy people” … should we just set them “free”?

      • YOu are out are you not? (Sorry, My Plutonian friend, I could not resist a slow hanging curve ball).

        • As a matter of “fact”, sir … i was institutionalized a long time ago … 14 or so. Football (and violence) saved me … for the better future of mankind in general, the greater good (in rhetoric) and to SUFA’s much needed enlightenment.

          But, the question stands: Do you set “us” free or contribute to our better mental health or pay the tax?

          • It must be a case by case basis….in your case….it is for enlightenment…most others get sent to the BF School of Charm.

            By the way….do you need a new ladle for your pot stirring today? The one you have must be worn out by now.

            • You did ask a question in seriousness, I think. I am on the level of charitable issues for, as you put it, crazies. No taxes. I feel that a community will do what is necessary, in this case, to solve the problem.

              **disclaimer**
              I am not responsible for the pending heart attack of BF.

            • No pot stirring, Colonel. These are/were legitimate questions … what do you do with criminals and the insane if there’s no government/law enforcement? Who are we to determine who is crazy? Does Charlie get to decide? BF?

              it’s a quagmire, yes … but it is what we have to deal with day to day in this (sarah palin voice–now this is pot stirring) “great country of ours, the united states of america”) …

              • Actually Charlie, I believe that a community is better suited to make those types of decisions rather than the “appointed” ones to make them for us. We have given up our rights to think when we relegate those rights to others. AND nobody should assume that all societies or communities are the same nor should they be the same. The example that you have been using today. The response in Fort Worth, Texas would have been quite different than the one in Philly.

              • By the way, Charlie, please dial 911 for BF afteryou finish reading this,,,, This is twice today for him and I think it too much strain. :smile:

          • Free men easily and voluntarily give to charity to assist those that suffer – regardless the reason for the suffering.

            The reason they do is the same reason they are free.

            “Do unto others….”

            To apply to charity, one must give charity. Free men understand this naturally.

            • Very eloquent but it doesn’t answer the question. Do you set them (crazies) “free” of instutionalization or depend on charity alone to solve the problem? Do you do it state by state or nationwide? What if the charity doesn’t cover the cost? Remember, there’s a lot of charitable cases out there (worthy ones–not like myself, of course). How does one handle this? How does society handle it?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Well we can’t lock them up. That would be violence on those who are not acting violently toward you. However, you can refuse to let them out. You are under no obligation, in a free state, to help.

                Then they’ll all start to death in prison and the free society only needs to deal with the ones who weren’t locked up with the government collapses under it’s own weight.

              • Charlie, I understand what you are saying but I think we need a touch of clarity. It’s almost impossible to institutionalize a person for being crazy who is not criminally insane. That pretty much ended a long time ago (in fact you can thank Governor Reagan of California I believe). It isn’t against the law to be crazy.

              • DPM….you hit that 44 ounce DP again, didn’t you?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Y’AAR!

                I lost track after the *HIC* twentieth or so six-pack – real cane sugar in *HIC* glass bottles..

                Mixes great with rum, but I’ve been peeing off poop deck ever 15 minutes like clockwork.

          • USWeapon says:

            substitute “enlightenment” with amusement and you have it correct :)

  21. The change of attitude of cops over the last couple of generations is the reason today they are populated with ugly, power-hungry idiots who are looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

    My Pop was a Cop – but back in the days that they were respected Keepers of the Peace, not law enforcement.

    Today, they have been turned into mechanical robots that are charged -not with Keeping the Peace – but enforcing all the stupid laws, creating conflict with peaceful people.

    The change is very noticeable and dangerous

    • I don’t know, BF. I’ve alwasy been told that cops back in the day had the leniency to slap a club across the heads (or asses) of smart mouths and that law and order was much more respected back then. I’m not sure I agree, but it is a common threat among the retired cops I know.

      But, the question still stands: As in charitable contributions into the research since you wouldn’t want to be taxed for the same reason? Or what about the institutions that house “crazy people” … should we just set them “free”?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      One thing that gets forgotten alot of time when people remember the “good ole days” is that the bad cops got away with it back then. Today, with the all the cameras and other recording devices the bad ones not only get caught more often, but their actions get put on the evening news.

      While I won’t argue that the addition of all these stupid laws, have created more potential for conflict between “normal” non-criminal people and police, I must stand by my earlier statement: Cops don’t make the laws. I believe we, as a “democracy” are starting to reap what we have sowed.

  22. Canine Weapon says:

  23. @Dread Pirate Matthius … starve them to death would leave a terrible stench … but over time, they would become degradable … turn into oil … then we could drill baby drill and increase our energy supply while decreasing the earth’s surplus population (of nuts anyway) …

    DPM for President!

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Nope. Sorry.

      They oil which they become belongs to their heirs. We cannot morally drill baby drill into our decomposed prison population without the permission of the families.

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    I would love to say that LEO today are honest, good people who care about their community. I find that true in the rural area that I live, but not in the city where I lived till July of last year. A true story!

    When total chaos breaks out in the front of Greg’s house, he runs out to see 8 to 12 young guys in an all out brawl with baseball bats. Concerned it may esculate, Greg retrieves his pistol and shoulder holster, puts it on over his tank top.

    Returning to the front of the house, Greg sees a man heading towards female neighbor across the street ready to crack her in the head with a bat. Greg, in the heat of the moment, knowing his neighbor is about to be bashed, draws and fires two rounds in the air. The youth’s run like hell, and the threat to neighbor ended when the man dropped the bat and fled as well.

    Greg puts the pistol on safe and reholsters, stands at the ready, just in case, in his driveway. The LEO’s arrive and promptly arrest Greg. Off to jail he goes, charged with firing a weapon in city limits and, get this, carrying a concealed weapon (a Federal Offense).

    To make this short, Greg took it to trial, the firing in city limits was dropped at the city level, and the case was forwarded to the County court to face trial on the Federal offense. The trial took place last March 16th. Greg was found innocent of the charge.

    It was later discovered that the cops routinely charge people with this Federal offense, in an attempt to make it illegal to own a gun (Federal Conviction) to the offender. Most will plea bargaing to a lesser federal offense, as they can’t afford a good lawyer, Greg could, and fought it to the bitter end.

    Moral of this event, the cops are and will attempt to disarm Americans when the opportunity arises, even in a pure self defense incident on your own property. Anyone who doesn’t think that our 2nd Amendment rights are not in danger, think again!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Anyone who doesn’t think that our 2nd Amendment rights are in danger, think again!

      Oops, double negative!

    • Displaced Okie says:

      Remind me me again where the cops passed this law…oh wait, they didn’t it was our elected officials…this is a problem I have with the cop haters, they seem to forget that NO laws are ever passed by the police, I always feel that the police are scapegaoted, when it is the politicians who are the ones passing the stupid laws,.. now, don’t get me wrong cops and police departments are not blameless, just look, at the topic of the article today here at SUFA, it is a prime example of the cop and the department acting like arrogant a-holes, but I feel that the majority of the blame still lie with the city councils, state and federal officials that pass and support these laws and practices

      • Okie

        Seems to me, just looking at that long list of killings above, that eliminating the “no knock” warrant might solve a lot of them.

        I doubt there is that many that truly need to be no knock searches.

        • I can remember when getting “no-knock” warrants were rare. Judges were hard to convince. But as they were successfully used more and more often cops learned the points to hit to convince the judges, who became less reluctant to allow them as there were few to no problems (in the laws eyes) when they were used.

          Now in some States – like Indiana – the cops can decide to make their warrant “no-knock” at the moment of execution.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          I agree, no knock warrants are abused in my opinion, but there again the only way to get a no knock warrantis to go through a state judge, who by the way are elected officials

          • Okie

            I believe the entire system has been corrupted for a multitude of reasons. Some places are still good and others terrible.

            Kind of the inevitable outcome of a population scared by crime and calling for action, then failing to take charge to make sure the action is in fact appropriate.

            What grinds my craw the most is the number of pundits and other “leaders” who are always rationalizing the failures in the system. We need to call it out and condemn it when we see it.

            Stay safe my friend.
            JAC

          • Naten53 says:

            there is a case in my region where an officer got shot and killed while executing a warrant with the swat team. The argument in court is over did the police identify themselves before barging in, or if the person has a justifiable reason for self defense if they didn’t identify themselves.

  25. I don’t like the way government has gone in this country – whether it’s from some cops behavior, some court’s decision, or some politician’s lies.

    Yet we have it, regardless of what some think is possible. I speak to one such Thinking Man in a new article at Gman’s blog:

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-no-ruler-government-of-dean-striker/

    I invite all to give it a read (especially Mr. Flag and Mr. McManigal) if you have the chance.

    • Mathius says:

      Listen buddy.. you better let me out of moderation on that link right this minute, or I’ll.. well I don’t know what I’ll do, but I’ll do it, by Jove!

      • Don’t get your panties in a twist junior….already done! Sheesh – impatience of first time commentators! ;)

        Thanks for stopping over.

        (Oh heavens, I called him “junior”)

        • Mathius says:

          Call me ‘sir,’ goddammit! (10 points for the reference).

          And if you’re really nice, maybe I’ll invite the Dread Pirate over really mix things up.

          • lol…….why thank you sir!

            And Dread is always welcome…..especially when he drags along a keg of that grog of his. :D

            • Mathius says:

              Ok, but he better not get stuck in moderation or there will be hell to pay.

              • well…………..if he’s never commented before……………..

                But I am sure we can find just compensation for the horrific delay of his free speech rights (now where did I put my judges robes so I can make an official ruling on his rights being violated???????).

              • gmanfortruth says:

                He won’t, once the email is approved, the screen name doesn’t matter.

              • Mathius says:

                He uses a different email.. note the different icon

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I would suggest commenting now while things are quiet, so you will not have this issue again. You’re always welcome to comment on my site! I like your humor and your a good person inside. :)

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Approve me, scallywag!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Done deal my pirate friend, you are clear to speak as you choose, no holds barred. That should please a pirate!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ferris Bueller

            • Mathius says:

              10 Points to the 10-point buck (see what I did there?)

              Now, just what in the sam hill are you doing on SUFA at 6:30? Don’t you have a life?

  26. Charlie,

    government/law enforcement

    I understand why you pervert/ignore/avoid the arguments here because you know the truth destroys your position.

    There is no right to use initiate violence on another person.

    You know this, but you cannot accept it, because that means you can’t use violence to enforce your perverted philosophy.

    But you love living under non-violence – as long as you can use it for yourself.

    So you are trapped.

    You will pervert my arguments about “law’ – and muck together your perverted definition and pretend it is mine regarding law.

    You will use your perverted definition and, ironically, attack it yourself as if it was mine, and find -that your definition sucks.

    But since it was yours, you destroyed it, you find your own gun pointed at your own forehead.

    But – you will say I’m holding that gun, so that you can excuse your own suicide.

    Charlie, I luv ya.

    You are the most typical American here.

    You are willing to use what ever means to get what you want.
    You are angry at others who do the same to you.
    You are confused in wondering why the world you fight for is such a mess.

  27. Charlie,

    Very eloquent but it doesn’t answer the question.

    It does answer the question.

    You just don’t like the answer.

    The TRUTH, Charlie, does not mean “the easiest way”.

    More often then not, the TRUTH means “hard work”.

    The TRUTH works on the “eventuality”, not on the short term expedient way.

    So what may appear the band aid, the short term, the expedient – eventually collapses to the eventuality.

    You are a short term thinker. You are “what happens in the next minute”.

    That is why you always lose to guys like me, who are 40 steps ahead of you – in the realm of “eventuality”.

    By the time you figure that out, I am already there.

    Do you set them (crazies) “free” of instutionalization or depend on charity alone to solve the problem?

    I do not fear free men.
    I do not fear the decisions of free men.

    IF there is such a problem, free men will figure out a solution that does not destroy freedom

    But you are impatient.

    Thus, you are willing to use violence and bypass reason.

    And, in the end, you end up destroying yourself.

    • Wow, that was an awful lot of gibberish to avoid an answer, BF. You are 40x’s ahead of me? It must be nice living out there in that universe. You can have it, my martian brother.

      What does fearing “free men” have to do with institutionalized lunatics? I’m not really asking because I hate to put you out for another hour or so of typing (on your end) to avoid yet another answer.

      I pervert your arguments, do I? So you didn’t say the best and brightest can’t fail? I know you never answered the question about institutionalized nuts and/or criminals (because you’re 40 steps ahead of the question)?

      I have a feeling you’re only an anarchist when it’s convenient, though … because otherwise you have to resort to even more assumptions than you already make (like 40 questions ahead but there’s still no answer other than “you don’t fear free men”). WTF is that supposed to mean? You don’t fear free men so criminal insane, lunatics in general and criminals in general go where? Who runs the places they go? Who pays for it?

      Try staying on the question at hand and ignore those 40 steps for the time being … just give an answer … afraid it’ll make less sense than the gibberish you’ve already scribbled?

  28. @Tim’s defense on USW:

    My attacks seem personal on USW? I seriously suggest you read back a few hundred posts … start at the posts themselves … you have to be kidding.

    My comments are different because I don’t agree with probably 75-90% of your agenda … when I first came here there were maybe 2 or 3 “Lefties” … and it was like watching the choir preach to the choir … some insance shit, I might add, but no more or less insance than I’m sure you find my red thru and thru agenda … so it goes.

    • Terry Evans says:

      I was merely making an observation…your attacks do seem personal and even venomous at times, and I have been reading…I do every week day pretty much, I just don’t post every day.

      I realize your comments differ from most others on this site, please do not stop making them, it is interesting to me. For me, I like to hear as many differing positions as possible. So thanks!

  29. @ Terry/Tim (somebody with a T) … that was for USW (remaining silent, etc.) … but feel free to embrace it as well.

  30. One interesting note about all of this, by the way. If I’m not mistaken, most here don’t like the rules of Political Correctness (or am I wrong)? If that “is” the case, why so up in arms over “Hey, Junior”, etc.? I think it was wrong for him to use that too, but not such a big deal as so many of you feel. The genius with the recorder wasn’t in his 40’s or 50’s, correct?

    • I’m no PC fan but Junior is a bit condecending. Maybe something like ” Yo Dude!” or “Hey Brother” would have been more appropriate.

    • Mathius says:

      PC might be the wrong word.. the issue is one of respect. There is no reason to start from a position of being rude to a grown man and treating him like some punk kid.

      We wasn’t in his 40’s, I don’t think, but from his picture, he looks soundly in his 30’s.. “junior” is disrespectful and, importantly, completely unnecessary. It was a cheap shot to say “I’m in a position of authority and I don’t have to respect you.”

    • USWeapon says:

      I can only answer for myself. I despise political correctness. However, I do expect public servants to treat the public that they serve with respect. That begins with not demeaning them with Hey Junior as a start to the interaction. They don’t get to be an asshole simply because they are wearing a badge.

      • Mathius says:

        Hey Wep!

        Respect can certainly be lost. If you act like a punk kid, I see nothing wrong with the officer calling you ‘junior,’ but I agree 100% that the default position should be respectful.

        Despite the issue of hurt feelings and political correctness, things just go smoother when you’re nice to people. I certainly am not going to be inclined to be cooperative with someone who belittles me.

        • Despite the issue of hurt feelings and political correctness, things just go smoother when you’re nice to people. I certainly am not going to be inclined to be cooperative with someone who belittles me.

          Pay attention, USW …

        • If you act like a punk kid, I see nothing wrong with the officer calling you ‘junior,’

          Hold your horses, you hippie, you! Why? What gives that officer the right to be abusive? Is there a need for him to do so? Does it help him with his job performance to call someone a punk (even if they are acting like one)? That badge doesn’t give him the right to be an asshole …

          See what I mean? Mitigating circumstances … facts we aren’t privy to … etc.

          • Mathius says:

            An officer has an obligation to be a respectful and responsible adult. The respectful part, I think, has some limitations. If you are hostile, belligerent, and obnoxious after the cop has been polite and professional, I think he can reasonably drop the “sirs.”

            This doesn’t mean that disrespect can justify unprofessional action, but I think a certain amount of reciprocity in verbal exchanges if viable. My personal opinion, though I do see how this is wishy-washy. Perhaps the officer should stick with the sirs no matter what? I don’t know. I just don’t see it as necessary if you’re acting like a jackass.

            That badge doesn’t give him the right to be an asshole … It’s nothing to do with the badge – it’s a question of being a human being who doesn’t want to be treated a certain way.

            Have you ever called customer support for something and really abused their support representative? I know I have. There comes a point where many people, despite training to always be polite and nice, will push back. I think this is completely justified. Just because, as the customer, I’m in a position of authority and power doesn’t give me the right to be an asshole.

            • Have you ever called customer support for something and really abused their support representative?

              many times, yes. Is that once incident in the crushing of socialtal norms? I’m not be faceitous (USW) … I mean it. Let it go already. Reprimand the cop for using “Junior” and not knowing the law … but the instigator was wrong too (it wasn’t so black and white as “he was doing what is his legal right to do so). Sorry, that just isn’t the case (the same way screaming “fire” in a theatre isn’t black and white freedom of speech).

    • Charlie,

      The age of the individual being addressed by the “hey junior” isn’t the issue in the use of the term.

      Lets just step back a moment and deal only with that opening “attention getter” by the cop. His statement, whatever he chooses to say, sets the tone of the encounter from the start. It will be reflected back in a response by the one the comment is pointed towards. In my day I could get encounters to go in directions I wanted just by what I said to the person (or persons) I was coming into contact with for whatever reason.

      I expect citizens to expect professional behavior from law enforcement officers (which is all we are discussing here) when they are contacted by them. Sadly that is not always the case. Cops, and I was guilty of this too, get used to being arrogant in their behavior (which is what starting out with “hey junior” was) whenever they decide it is acceptable for them to do so – regardless of the professional code of behavior instilled in them by the department when they first joined).

      That cop knew exactly what he was doing when he opened his mouth. He’d done it countless times before in that area I’m sure. He didn’t care how old the “subject” was – 15, 25, or 50. Right, wrong or indifferent he was setting the tone of the encounter as HE (the cop) wanted it to be.

      • I expect citizens to expect professional behavior from law enforcement officers (which is all we are discussing here)

        Ooops, my bad. I thought it was a crawl to crushing the 2nd amendment …

        I hear you, Plainly. I still think what transpired was at least equally the fault of someone looking to start trouble with the police for his political agenda. I know you know what “entrapment is” … the cop was a putz; so was the punk with the recorder.

        • I know Charlie. I said it earlier I believe, the guy was stupid and the cop was an ass. The fact that it ended without shots being fired is just plain luck in the end.

          But, I will say – and did say – that while the idiot was stupid and likely looking for an incident to occur I didn’t care because he was within his legal rights. Ya just can’t fix stupid is all.

          • The fact that it ended without shots being fired is just plain luck in the end.

            Brother, are we in Agreement or what? Yes, “sir!”

            My wife and I often talk about which might be worse, being the parent of a kid who was killed or being the parent of the kid who did the killing. Sometimes it just isn’t black and white (is all I’m pleading).

            • Sometimes it just isn’t black and white (is all I’m pleading).

              I agree with that. In most cases it isn’t.

              Interesting question too. My wife and I often discuss similar things like that.

            • Charlie,

              My wife and I often talk about which might be worse, being the parent of a kid who was killed or being the parent of the kid who did the killing. Sometimes it just isn’t black and white (is all I’m pleading).

              I am an acquaintance of two families where one son of one of the families killed the son of the other.

              The answer:
              Both families are utterly crushed. There is no ‘worse’.

              One son is dead.

              The other has been locked up for 15 years. He was 16 when this happened, and was tried as an adult.

              But the strength of both of the families have created a good. They have come together to form a organization dedicated to non-violence – and the boy in jail has been the most active in jail of helping other kids get out of the trap of criminal and gang violence.

              Irony: though everyone involved, including the bereaved family, wants the boy on parole, the government cannot allow a good thing to happen. How dare a bunch of people actually solve their own problem?

              • That is a tough situation, BF. And the families involved must be very special. I’m not so sure I could be forgiving if it were my kid that was killed. And I’d be crushed if it were my kid who did the killing. I also don’t know that letting a kid skate on a murder before his time is the answer … what goes on in jails is often “miraculous” (like finding god, etc.) … I just don’t know. I guess if the family of the murdered child is okay with it, than I’d be inclined to let it happen … but man, oh, man, if that kid learned a thing or two while away (which is very wont to happen), and he does something like murder again on the outside, I fear that would pretty much end any chance of it happening again. Tough call.

  31. You are playing right into the hands of the despotic progressives. What happened to Mr. Forino has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

    First the Fundamentals: Read “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat. You can find a copy many places on the ‘net. Here is one

    http://tinyurl.com/3r3ekh2

    In this profound body of thought, Bastiat explains that the law in a civilized society is the COLLECTIVE manifestation of our INDIVIDUAL right to self defense. The means which an individual has at their disposal for this honorable purpose is undefined and doesn’t matter. There is (or at least was) an inherent feature of United States law that delivers justice for dishonorable acts.

    Folks are fond of citing the Second Amendment as foundation for the individual’s right to carry a weapon. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offered a ruling on this notion some years ago. See:

    http://tinyurl.com/5v78q2n

    In this ruling, the nation’s most prolific court of constitution bashing correct asserted that the Second Amendment was all about collective self defense by your yourself and your neighbors when called upon to repel dishonorable actions from without. They then draw the conclusion that The Government has sufficiently provided arms specific to this purpose and therefore, the Second Amendment does not pertain to arms common to military style actions.

    My fellow citizens, by hanging our collective self defense hat on the Second Amendment, we INVITE the kind of behavior that the despotic progressive is so adept at delivering. Throw up a ‘straw man’ in the form of a Second Amendment justification for personal ownership of tools of self defense and then set him on fire. It makes THEM look learned and US look stupid.

    Bastiat explained over 200 years ago that we have an inalienable right to defend the property and persons of ourselves and our neighbors by what ever means is available to us. Whether than armament is a fire arm or a baseball bat is immaterial to the exercise of that right. Ergo, your right to own a firearm has nothing to do with your local militia and everything to do with your right for self preservation . . . which is NOT a Second Amendment issue.

    By keeping our attention focused on things like Second Amendment faux arguments, our attention is mis-directed from more significant issues.

    The battle that honorable citizens have with their government is the conversation of law, a tool of collective self-defense. into a tool of oppression and plunder. This goes far beyond any discussions about the Second Amendment. The outcome of clinging to that Second Amendment straw man is that you get burned as the straw man goes up in flames and down in ashes.

    • Mathius says:

      Well now, Robert.

      First, let me welcome you to the asylum. I don’t believe I’ve seen you around these parts before.

      That said, you make an interesting argument.

      The problem I have is that this draws no lines and creates no limitations on the “right to self defense” (which, I agree, is absolute) when it crosses over into becoming a threat to the rest of society.

      You say that a baseball bat or a firearm are both acceptable insofar as they meet are justified under the umbrella of self defense, but the problem is that a baseball bat can do limited harm when misapplied. If you miss with a pistol or act irresponsibly, you may kill a bystander. If you wield a machine gun (which I think you would qualify under this same umbrella), you could inadvertently kill dozens of people. Similarly, if you use it in a non-self-defense manner, it is likely to cause substantive harm rather than the baseball bat.

      What about a stick of dynamite on a dead-man switch? How about about a grenade launcher? Biological weapons? Nukes? Where does self-defense end and an unacceptable risk to innocent bystanders begin? And, if it creates that risk, does this override your right to defend yourself in your chosen manner?

      I would also add that driving a car presents the potential for serious harm when wield inexpertly or immaturely, and occasionally (as with firearms as well) when you are doing things right but just make a minor error – say forgetting trigger protocol. Yet, to wield the power and threat of the “privilege” of driving a 2,000 lb kinetic missile filled with combustible fuel, we require that individuals complete a satisfactory (and too easy, in my opinion) level of training and testing and meet certain applicable standards (for example, vision) and we will retract that authority if the individual is proven to be a threat (say, DUI convictions). How do you feel about these ideas as they apply (or might apply) to gun ownership?

      Looking forward to your response.

      Mathius

      • Just got to jump in with a quick question Mathius:

        In California if you shove a club or a firearm under your seat the charge is the same (felony carrying of a concealed weapon). Why is that if the case if the gun is so much more dangerous?

        (I’m not pot stirring either. This question was asked of a district attorney who was very pro-gun control during a seminar – yes, I spent lots of time attending LEO seminars. I’m just curious how you answer it, then I’ll tell you how he did).

        • Mathius says:

          No idea. I think it should be different. The question, to me, is magnitude of harm.

          If a concealed gun is a crime because of the danger it poses (presumably) to others, then a club should be a lesser (though I would say no) offense.

          My opinion, anyway.

          A lot of laws are stupid, inane, or incongruous because they are drafted by politicians seeking reelection and enforced by police and DA’s whose goals aren’t necessarily doing what’s right so much as securing convictions to justify their salaries.

          • Amen

          • Interesting answer. Here’s what the DA told us.

            The charge has nothing to do with the item under the seat at all. It can be a bat or a gun or a knife – pick an item that is or could be used as a weapon.

            What it has to do with is the intention of the person putting that item under the seat. It’s there to be used as an item in offense or defense against another person – ergo a concealed weapon.

            Damn lawyers, always have some twisted answer! :)

            • Mathius says:

              I fail to see why “use in defense” should be a crime..

              • Because you chose to have the item under your seat to use it as a weapon, so you are guilty of carrying a concealed weapon under the law. The law cares not whether you use it for offense or defense.

              • Mathius says:

                Right, right.. no.. I get why it’s a violation of the law. I don’t get why it’s should be a violation of the law to do anything and everything possible in self-defense.

              • Mathius says:

                sorry.. that came out confusingly..

                I understand why it is a crime, as specified by the law.

                I don’t understand why the law is written to make it a crime.

              • My best guess would be:

                What can be used for defense can be easily used for offense too. The law is trying to be neutral I guess.

                Other than that I am with you.

      • You have accurately hit upon the purpose for which the courts were originally created: the adjudication and resolution of dishonorable behaviors against honorable citizens.

        There are countless ways that otherwise useful tools might contribute to the outcome of behaviors by a dishonorable individual or group. Quite often, no tools are required. See:

        http://tinyurl.com/3dmq7wf

        Therefore, honorable purpose for courts does not concern itself with baseball bats, AK47s, or automobiles driven by irresponsible drinkers.

        The purpose of law is to bring justice to the honorable citizen who is victim to the dishonorable behavior of another individual. To spend literally $millions$ confiscated from taxpayers to argue, adjudicate, write and enforce new law that speaks to the TOOLS of dishonor is a useless endeavor. a waste of public funds and a tactic of mis-direction that draws attention away from the ineptitude and dishonor of our own government.

        The idea that any learned body of individuals can by legislation or decree, mitigate the outcome of dishonorable behavior by controlling tools of dishonor is just silly. ESPECIALLY when those tools have profoundly valuable purposes in the hands of honorable citizens. We tried to legislate drunkenness by outlawing booze. We’re still trying to legislate pharmacological euphoria by outlawing drugs. We’re busy “conserving” on a host of resources because government has no demonstrated ability to expand those resources . . . they can only use the force of law to say, “No, you can’t do that.”

        This Second Amendment prattle (like 95% of everything else our government does) is profoundly extra-constitutional and ineffectual at any purpose other than tightening government’s grip on the liberty of honorable citizens.

        • Mathius says:

          Why haven’t we crossed paths before? I like your arguments immensely. Far more than our resident, and extremely argumentative, Black Flag, I find you far more difficult to rebut – thus infinitely more convincing. Thank you for this.

          Your argument here, it seems, boils down to this: it is stupid to attempt to legislate against tools when the problem is the underlying behavior. When we have tried, as with Prohibition, it has failed or worsened the situation.

          This is a solid case.

          Where I look at this, I see this as a very true statement. That is, people behave and will continue to behave irresponsibly, and it cannot be legislated against effectively. That said, to me, it’s a question of capacity for magnitude of harm. Drink yourself to death and you die, no big loss. Drink and drive and you kill someone, bad. Irresponsibly shoot someone with a pistol, bad. Irresponsibly mow down a dozen people with your assault rifle, very bad.

          So, if we’re going to accept that people will be irresponsible, and we can’t necessarily predict who and when/where, then it seems to me that the tools with facilitate the amplification of harm from that irresponsibility are the only point at which we may have some ability to mitigate that harm.

          Else, how do you prevent harm from irresponsible individuals in the (admittedly extreme) examples I listed before?

          Can a “free society” be free if you are in constant fear of the few irresponsible individuals who maintain and exercise an absolute right to “defend themselves” with tools which could easily result in mass slaughter?

          • Mathius,

            You just need softer words than I will offer. It appears you need sugar with your bitter medicine. I, myself, don’t have much use for sugar coatings.

            then it seems to me that the tools with facilitate the amplification of harm from that irresponsibility are the only point at which we may have some ability to mitigate that harm.

            No.

            You are merely dabbling in trade offs, Mathius.

            You can define anything to be a dangerous weapon and if someone agrees with your position here, totally tyranny is the eventual consequence.

            You cannot legislate away “a little bit of freedom” by a justification (whatever you want to make up here), because the moment you can justify destroying freedom for your “cause”, any other “cause” now has equal justification

            So, the trade off – a tiny bit of security (and not a lot, because a law has never stopped a “crazy”) for a whole lot of lost freedom.

            You cannot be perfectly safe.
            You cannot create enough law to be perfectly safe.

            But you can most certainly create plenty of law to enslave yourself.

            • Mathius says:

              It’s nothing to do with sugar.

              Maybe he’s just smarter than you :)

              • Mathius,

                smarter than you

                Not likely.

                But no complaint here.

                If by his eloquence he can enlighten, he has my hat tip and salute too!

              • Mathius says:

                Ooh, lookie here.. was that a flash of the infamous Black Flag ego?

                Mr. Flag, I’m curious.. how would you guess that my brain power stacks up to yours? Honesty, if you please.

                That said, his eloquence helps whereas your blunt abrasiveness is.. offputting and immediately inclines the reader to argue rather than consider. But the true difference is in the argument itself.

                He is not arguing morality and black/white reality (which doesn’t exist) in a vacuum. He is building a case that it gun control is fundamentally unworkable and addresses the wrong issue (the tools over the irresponsible individual).

                Also, I agree with his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

          • “Else, how do you prevent harm from irresponsible individuals in the (admittedly extreme) examples I listed before?”

            By being able and willing to defend yourself . . . and being rationally cognizant of the inevitable. A comfortable and productive life is about managing risk. Some risks are within our RIGHT and ability to mount a defense, others are beyond our control. Some folks find it comforting to trade liberty for security. These same folks have a religious faith in “The Word” handed down by government. “If my government has decreed it, yea verily it must be so.”

            There will always be events at the end of the bell-curve for similar events that are outside the control of the victims. Airplanes flown into the Trade Center come to mind. But the vast majority of risks are within reasonable and prudent action to mitigate them.

            You can’t stand in your front yard and tell the oncoming tornado that “You can’t do that . . . Senate Bill XXXX say’s you’re engaged in illegal behavior.” But you can retreat to your storm shelter and keep your insurance paid up.

            “Can a “free society” be free if you are in constant fear of the few irresponsible individuals who maintain and exercise an absolute right to “defend themselves” with tools which could easily result in mass slaughter?”

            Absolutely, suppose the 9/11 hijackers KNEW in advance that there was a high probability of numerous, unidentified individuals on board every airplane with the willingness and means to thwart their designs? They are, after all, cowards. They may have been driven by religious fervor but they are not fools, “Too risky guys, let’s go find a more helpless segment of the American population to subject to our sadistic bullying.” They probably would not have mounted the adventure in the first place.

            It was their belief that the airplanes would be occupied by pliant, docile citizens willing to wait for government to rescue them that made the whole thing possible in the first place.

            The decades old age of cabin-based hijacking ended on 9/11. A few honorable and heroic individuals on flight 93 decided to disregard the instructions of their ineffectual, do-nothing government and prevent the hijackers plans from going forward. Had TSA never come into existence, had screening procedures at the airports never changed, the likelihood that anyone would mount a similar attack in the future went waayyyy down.

            Jeremy Glick and associates reminded us of what it means to be an American living is a state of liberty . . .and what it means to accept the duties that come with that liberty. Lessons learned: Anyone who misbehaves on an airplane today is dead meat. A plane full of irate passengers is far more dangerous than one air marshal.

            It is the quest for legislated security that numbs the otherwise rational mind into a sense of false security. Our nation’s history is replete with examples of the unintended consequences of faith in a super-natural efficacy of The Legislative Word. “Got some worries? No problem. We’ll write a law.”

            Too many of our citizens are dismayed when the perceived problem doesn’t get better, it gets worse. This nation came into existence and grew to become the shining example of what a civilized society of honorable individuals can accomplish in a free-market atmosphere of individual and communal liberty. Most of what our citizens suffer from the actions of dishonorable individuals is not for lack of law but because of it.

            Despotic progressivism is a debilitating virus of the mind that promotes suicidal behaviors in a nation. We are witness to the effects of this disease on a grand scale. One might argue how far we are from the tipping point but the trends are quite clear.

            Those in power are delighted that we expend time and emotional capital debating the behaviors of one cop, of one citizen, of a non-existent Second Amendment right, etc. etc. While we’re blinded by smoke screens of THEIR design and fabrication, they ply symptoms of their disease with impunity . . . operating in plain sight.

            • Okay, this guy has now scared me too …

              This nation came into existence and grew to become the shining example of what a civilized society of honorable individuals can accomplish in a free-market atmosphere of individual and communal liberty.

              Sure, once you remove the face it was formed by the taking of lands from native Indians and that part and parcel of its growth was slavery …. but why open that can of worms again?

              BFii (although kinder and gentler, thus far) …

            • BF,

              Eloquent he is, no doubt about it.

            • Mathius says:

              They [the 9/11 hijackers] are, after all, cowards. I hear this all the time and I have to say that this is false. It is, in truth, little more than propaganda. Stupid, foolish, manipulated, sociopathic, etc, sure. But cowards they were not.

              They knowingly and willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause in which they believed. That this cause was evil is irrelevant. That takes bravery. Especially as they risked, worse than death, capture. To call them cowards is simply inaccurate. Now, the planners of 9/11.. well they are/were cowards.

              There will always be events at the end of the bell-curve for similar events that are outside the control of the victims. Yes. This is true. I can always get hit by a meteor and there is nothing any law can do about it. Agreed.

              But doesn’t permitting anyone and everyone to carry whatever ordinance they wish anywhere they wish enlarge that end of the bell curve? It trades threats you can now deal with for new threats you can’t.

              Is a mugger more or less of a threat since everyone is now armed? Yes and no. It’s a riskier proposition to mug someone who might be carrying, so maybe they’ll just shoot you first, then take your wallet?

              No one is likely to break into your home since you’re armed, true (safer). But irresponsible people are now more likely inadvertently kill you because they pulled the trigger without thinking (less safe).

              As you said, A comfortable and productive life is about managing risk. The question is simply this: which one makes us safer? I remember how irresponsible I was as a teenager. If I had had a gun, there is a fair chance I might have killed someone accidentally. We license people to drive, why is gun ownership so different?

              • We license people to drive, why is gun ownership so different?

                We don’t require approval from the government to buy a car, yet we do a gun – why is that?

                If we only license the use of the item then get rid of the Brady laws right?

              • To call them cowards is simply inaccurate.

                At best … inaccurate. Downright duplicitous otherwise.

                No laws = free for all. You think things are messy now?

              • “But cowards they were not.”

                I guess that goes to the definition of ‘coward’. Permit me explain the context. Terrorists (and budding terrorists – Bullies) select victims who are least able/likely to mount an effective defense. A good example in recent news was the discussion about behaviors of the Dove Outreach (FL) and Westboro Baptist (KS) marauders in expressing their own flavors of religious fervor.

                http://tinyurl.com/3crjwyc

                In yet another perversion of constitutionally guaranteed rights, our courts have opined that Westboro behaviors are protected free speech taking the form of “public debate.” Hogwash!

                In the essay linked above, I proposed the notion that Westboro and their leaders were engaged in bullying of individuals who were least likely to protect or retaliate for the offense. It is in that context that I use the word ‘coward’.

                “They knowingly and willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause in which they believed. That this cause was evil is irrelevant. That takes bravery.”

                One might argue that it takes some kind of courage to willingly face death for one’s beliefs . . . alternatively, I’ll suggest their behavior is nothing more noble than the ultimate manifestation of despotic progressivism. Their behaviors are totally befrift of empathy for the innocent. I submit that given the nature of their victims, their actions are deranged and properly described as cowardice.

                “But doesn’t permitting anyone and everyone to carry whatever ordinance they wish anywhere they wish enlarge that end of the bell curve? It trades threats you can now deal with for new threats you can’t.”

                Which is why we must hang our hats on an insistence on honorable behaviors. The honorable citizen of a civilized society would find no reason to walk around with a grenade launcher or AK-47. If our system of law was dedicated to its constitutional purpose, it’s most unlikely that any honorable citizen perceives a need for firepower greater than what can be carried inconspicuously.

                Now, if you were an honorable citizen of Mexico, it’s conceivable that some areas of the country might demand levels of defensive force commensurate with that of a grenade launcher.

                “Is a mugger more or less of a threat since everyone is now armed? Yes and no. It’s a riskier proposition to mug someone who might be carrying, so maybe they’ll just shoot you first, then take your wallet?”

                Yup, you got it. There is always that risk. But if you are in the company of other honorable carriers, then the perp is still at risk for judgement and justice in the court of present circumstances. I’ve heard it suggested that an armed society is a polite society.

                “No one is likely to break into your home since you’re armed, true (safer). But irresponsible people are now more likely inadvertently kill you because they pulled the trigger without thinking (less safe).”

                Not EVERYONE has the disposition to make them a responsible user of deadly force. But just because some individual add risk by being armed does not justify a law saying that nobody should be armed.

                “We license people to drive, why is gun ownership so different?”

                None whatsoever. There are individuals unqualified to drive cars, fly airplanes, swing axes, run table saws. There is nothing wrong with screening the applicant for minimum skills, lack of past irrational behaviors, and in particular – manifestation of honorable behaviors amongst fellow citizens.

                No rational thinker is asking for wide open access to any tool by anyone who desires it. Command and control of great force requires skills and mindset that demonstrate responsible and honorable use of that force.

              • Mathius says:

                befrift of empathy for the innocent. I run into this one too from time to time.. They do not view civilians as innocent. We pay taxes and vote. We contribute to the government when they believe is their enemy. That we have little choice doesn’t matter to them. We are all a part of the machine which is, in their view, attacking them.

                So we may think they have no empathy for the innocent, but they just don’t think we’re innocent. Therefore, they think no empathy is warranted. They probably knew that they’d get a few true innocents – and I imagine that, so far as they thought about it, they felt badly about that.

                It’s too easy to see them as inhuman monsters. They are bullies, perhaps, but mostly, they were just fools. They deserve out pity, not out hate.

                But just because some individual add risk by being armed does not justify a law saying that nobody should be armed. There’s the jackpot. I (generally) agree. Now, how to separate the wheat from the chaff?

                No rational thinker is asking for wide open access to any tool by anyone who desires it. Mr. Flag, unless I’m mistaken, argues exactly that. But if you agree that there needs to be some sort of screening process, how, specifically, do you envision that?

      • You always take it to extremes!

        No where in the right to keep and bear arms does it refer to bearing grenade launchers.

        Common sense is the dividing line!

        • Anita,

          You are right. It does not say “except Grenade Launchers”

          You either have a right to bear arms -any arms that you see fit in your defense – or you do not.

          • I think you just politely told me I’m wrong.

            I’d have to raise an eyebrow if I saw someone walking around with a grenade launcher.

            • Mathius says:

              Maybe, but you’d think twice before shouting “hey junior” at them.

            • Anita,

              Of course you would raise an eyebrow, and probably an alarm too!

              You would have to think: Why does he need that launcher right now? Are we at war and being invaded?

              Self-defense is not OFFENSIVE – and inappropriate displays of weaponry is a threat not to be taken lightly.

              There are reasons why concealed weapons are a threat – which is why the “Old West” dudes always wore their guns outside of their clothes.

              One cannot take an example out of context. Having a Launcher is your right if you feel you need it to defend yourself – but it is not a right to use it to threaten your neighbors.

              This is the “balance” I think you are trying to figure out – but it is futile to create a dividing line of what is and what is not “too dangerous to have as a weapon”. It is all situational.

              • One cannot take an example out of context.

                My point exactly regarding the cop in Philly (never mind what we couldn’t see on the video, etc.). He was an ass, yes, but so was the moron walking around with an exposed gun in an environment where it wasn’t something a cop could expect to see.

      • “We are all a part of the machine which is, in their view, attacking them.”

        Which is institutionalized guilt by association . . . a root concept of despotic progressive assault upon liberty. You first concentrate on the ‘soldiers’ charge of emotional capital to drive the operation. Hang labels, vilify all individuals so labeled with any number and kind of projections. “Infidel”, “blasphemer”, “unbeliever”, “spawn of Satin” etc. etc. You’ve seen the drill. In this country it’s “nazi”, “neo-con”, “democrat”, “liberal”, “republican”, “killers of old folks and children”, etc, etc. Despros come in all ethnicities nationalities and agendas.

        That’s why I strive to discuss individuals in terms of their BEHAVIORS and that falls into two camps. Honorable protectors of liberty. Dishonorable enemies of liberty. What ever else they choose to call themselves is of no significance. I want to know the mind set and integrity of the individual . . . not that of his/her group.

        “So we may think they have no empathy for the innocent, but they just don’t think we’re innocent.”

        Once the label and degree of sin have been properly assigned, the acolyte is justified to behave as member of an equally dishonorable group . . . and the fun begins.

        We could argue the labels for hatred, cowardice, foolishness, etc. Bottom line is that once an individual takes it upon themselves to apply force or fraud against another individual, there had better be an honorable incentive. I.e. the protection of liberty.

        “It’s too easy to see them as inhuman monsters. They are bullies, perhaps, but mostly, they were just fools. They deserve out pity, not out hate.”

        I don’t hate anyone. But I will willingly waste any individual who presents a threat to me, my family or my fellow Americans. Our constitution doesn’t allow for hate, love, friendliness or whatever . . . it’s all about liberty and honorable protection thereof.

        “But just because some individual add risk by being armed does not justify a law saying that nobody should be armed. There’s the jackpot. I (generally) agree. Now, how to separate the wheat from the chaff?”

        How do you get a driver’s license, a pilot’s license, a license to cut cancers out of living bodies?

        No rational thinker is asking for wide open access to any tool by anyone who desires it. Mr. Flag, unless I’m mistaken, argues exactly that. But if you agree that there needs to be some sort of screening process, how, specifically, do you envision that?

        There are any number of recipes for success that demonstrate a host of processes and philosophies for the privilege of being armed. There’s a business less than a mile from my house that offers the concealed-carry education and testing. There’s a sheriff’s office still closer that would issue the permit once I acquired the education. I would then make it a point to become first name acquaintances with local law enforcement. It’s good that they have some notion of who I am, what I’m about and under what conditions my use of weaponry becomes an interest of the state. Honorable people do not fear other honorable people. It matters not what weapon they possess.

  32. I also understand that Charlie thinks that I am a far right whacko who is uniformed, unintelligent, unenlightened, unrealistic, and uncooth

    No, just condescending … which your posts are loaded with, but that could be passion. I have little problem with passion, until it reads condescending … and then I respond in kind. The ball will always be in your court, USW. Contrary to BF’s belief in my love of violence, I’m a counterpuncher.

    As to political correctness. Aside from Matt (that other lefty), is it fair to say that depending on who’s Ox is gored so goes your desire for PC? Just curious. Where are you on Rodney King, for instance?

    As to the title of your article, etc., I find the paranoia behind it (whether it’s one incident at a time, etc.) to be a bit batshit crazy (pay attention, Gman) … I’m sure for every incident such as this cop in Philly and the instigator (which I still have no problem with because of the facts, as well as what we could not see), there are others where cops didn’t take someone with a gun serious and were clipped for it. Whether it happened in Philly or not, is irrelevant.

    I find the “black and whiteness” of your argument, USW, very Javert-like … you see the world in black and white, it seems, and refuse to acknowledge some of the mitigating circumstances. Now, when Matt argues with me over this, I take his argument more serious (but what does one expect from hippies like Matt? …:) but only because he at least acknowledged some of what the cop was dealing with. Serious, but I don’t swallow it whole because it winds up as black and white as yours when his demands for respect supersede the situation at hand.

    Yes, the cop was abusive calling the guy Junior (but how abusive? Was that really so terrible on the streets of Philly–or are you suddenly reforming your theory on PC to include all instances regarding LE?). Where do you stand on Rodney King (curiousity)?

    Yes, the was uninformed regarding the law.

    That’s where I see his faults end. The guy was there to instigate as situation with the police, he consistently talked back when requested to do something and where and how he did what he did, including the fact it isn’t something a cop routinely sees on the streets of Philly, make the clown looking to “stir the pot” equally at fault in my book. I reprimand the cop and the citizen and move on. I don’t see it as one small incident leading to the crushing of the 2nd amendment. That’s baiting the whackos for the sake of supporting an argument.

    • Mathius says:

      “Uncooth”

      Who in the world uses the word “uncouth” in this day and age? What are you? 95 years old?

  33. RE; The “Hey Junior” thing.

    I smirk at cops who think because they have a badge, their IQ grows to 220 and they think they know “everything”.

    But the reality is their IQ barely passes “normal”, and they mostly have an overly developed “brute” brain instead.

    They are usually too stupid to know they are stupid.

    • Mathius says:

      People who are too stupid to know that they’re stupid are frequently very dangerous individuals.

      • How about a “Yale” graduate who starts two wars; one based on “misinformation” from an intelligence agency he later blames for being incompetent?

        Not pot stirring, by the way …

        • Terry Evans says:

          Or another Yale graduate that continued those two and is involved in another.

          • No, Terry, that particular imbecile went to Harvard …:)

            • Terry Evans says:

              My mistake…Ivy league types…both of them…

              • I agree. as if the Ivy league is a guarantee of anything more than hubris. Neither one of those clowns ever worked a day in their life (for real work) … not a one. And their collective incompetence proves it.

                Nader in 2012?

              • Terry Evans says:

                I am holding out to see what the final field will be in 2012 before I support anyone in particular.

            • Mathius says:

              Not so fast, Charlie.. he might have had yet another imbecile in mind.. give him a chance to clarify.

              Yale has produced a great many political imbeciles:
              Bush Sr
              Bush Jr
              [Grandpa] Prescott Bush
              John Calhoun
              [Unofficial President] Dick Cheney
              Slick Willie
              Hillary [3 AM phone call] Clinton
              Ford
              Taft
              Alito
              Clarence Thomas
              Ashcroft
              John “Swift Boat” Kerry
              Joe “Ass Hat” Lieberman
              Arlen Specter
              Jerry “I-Don’t-Know-How-To-Effectively-Govern-California” Brown
              Howard “AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!” Dean
              William F. Buckley
              Fareed Zakaria
              Nathan Hale
              Samuel Augustus ["The Original"] Maverick
              Lewis [Perjury] Libby
              and about 100 others

    • So, BF, are you suggesting that someone who can leap 40 questions ahead of another has the right to be abusive because they think they know “everything”? That’s a serious question, by the way.

      • Charlie,

        No.
        I have found the smarter people get, the less they want to intrude on other people.

        They know that another person does not know what another wants, needs, or desires better than that person themselves.

        But there are exceptions – a group of brain damaged people who do believe they are special from God, and can act for God on Earth, by any means necessary.

        • No. I have found the smarter people get, the less they want to intrude on other people.

          Maybe … but voicing their opinion and then voting for what they believe is their right too. It wouldn’t make them stupid if their side of an argument/vote won (I don’t think).

          They know that another person does not know what another wants, needs, or desires better than that person themselves.

          Which would have to include them not wanting a government free life, no? if they don’t agree with an anarchist’s argument that no government is best for all …

          But there are exceptions – a group of brain damaged people who do believe they are special from God, and can act for God on Earth, by any means necessary

          I hope you don’t mean the remnant … :)

  34. Just some general comments:

    1. It is pretty easy to set up a cop for a good video/audio “show” if one is dumb enough to risk their own safety. Cops are so use to recording encounters themselves (dash cams and remote mikes) that we become accustomed to it and don’t even think about it much anymore. They reap their own madness. :)

    2. Rodney King: I too have seen the complete video of the incident, courtesy of the LAPD and the training seminar they presented it at in a Use of Force and Force Continuum class they gave. Very enlightening, but the bottom line is the second the cops stepped over the line in the arrest they – and every cop watching who did nothing to stop them – were guilty of excessive use of force. They gave King the goon squad treatment and had NO remorse over doing so. Their emotions got the nest of them and they lost control (that’s no excuse or mitigating circumstance either).

    3. Political Correctness – In my book says call someone a name if you must, but be polite about it. Whatever happened to basic human respect? Have we flushed our standards totally down the sewer?

    • Me and plainly in agreement again … except for #3. I would “Hope” all cops used as much PC as possible whenevrer possible (and this cop clearly chose not to do so) but … maybe he’s never been reprimanded for it before and I cannot (and refuse) to ignore the facts of the circumstance and situation (high crime area in Philly where people are not routinely walking around with exposed weapons). I can understand his adrenaline pumping a bit in that scenario.

      • lol………..Charlie, which one of us is shifting – you right or me left?

        I’m gonna lose my non-existent membership in the conservative movement at this rate. :)

        • Yes, you are in definite danger of losing your “crazies on the right” card. I’m an amusement here so my card doesn’t count. Like I’ve said many times, I’m probably more conservative than BF and USW combined (on certain issues), but capitalism isn’t one of them. I’m probably closer to a fascist (in this arena) … :)

  35. The underlying point of all this is the effect it has on our rights. Not whether the cop or the citizen was rude. There’s a problem, people have the right in this situation to carry an unconcealed gun. The police department are saying they have the right to not only ask to see a persons permit but to also 1. point a gun at a person who isn’t breaking the law 2. Make them suffer the indignity of laying on the ground like a dog following his masters instructions.

    Now I see that there is a balance that must be looked at-the safety of the officer and the rights of the citizen-but the departments policy needs to be something better than just expect to be inconvenienced and made to lay on the ground-when you are NOT breaking the law.

    So first question 1. Does a police officer have the right to stop a person who is legally carrying who isn’t doing anything wrong-just to check his license? Heck I haven’t been able to completely answer this question yet and to my mind it’s the first question to ask. Should I have to accept being harassed in order to do something that is supposed to be legal?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Answer to first question: Absolutely, and especially so in a high crime area where this is not the norm.

      • Why? And what significance does “the norm” have to do with anything? Being in an area where a lot of people carry doesn’t make a gun anymore or any less dangerous just more accepted as okay.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          The ‘norm’ goes to what constitutes suspicious activity.

          • Absolutely. If you’re a cop in a high crime area where people do not “routinely” carry exposed weapons, between the street pressure that goes with being a cop in such an area and the pressure of the department to make arrests, etc., seeing some guy walk down the street with an exposed weapon is an immediate stressful situation because GUNS ARE FOCKING DANGEROUS!

            Sorry, did I just scream. I didn’t mean to … i think I was just being “amusing” …

        • Hmmm-Not sure unusual should translate legally as suspicious-will have to think about it.

          Charlie

          I find that I think police officers in these areas would walk around with the fear of what they can’t see more than a gun they can see-as long as the gun was in a strapped holster.

          • I’m not so sure, VH. Never been a cop, but I have lived in high crime areas (and have been a criminal myself). There’s a chemistry that exists on the street for cop and criminal alike. I have to think that any cop would be wary of an exposed gun (holstered or not). You never know who the occasional whack job is (someone without the chemistry, although some of them let it out too). The guy who walked up to the Congresswoman in AZ and shot her in the head is a prime example. You just never know. Better safe than sorry.

    • Very good point VH. Indeed, the affect can be chilling. But to go into your question (and, my apologies, to pull a BF in doing so):

      It depends on whether you want a police force that “protects and serves” or a reactive police force that “arrests” offenders?

      We have elements of both (lesser of the protects and serves side) in our society today. Take, for example, DUI checkpoints. Any driver that approaches is stopped and their license, insurance and registration is checked as well as being observed and questioned for signs of alcohol use. Is it a violation of your rights to have the checkpoint and stop you when you are doing nothing wrong? Or, is it a good idea to keep down the number of intoxicated drivers?

      The same can be said of open carry of a firearm. Legal here in Colorado, and fairly common. Cops see it all the time. I had the “privilege” of disarming a man carrying a double-barreled shotgun at the local city owned hospital when I worked armed security there. Yes, that shotgun was legal. Yes, it was loaded. But, it was not legal to openly carry it inside the hospital as we had legal signs posted prohibiting open carry under state law. When he was turned over to local cops I was told that my suspect carried that shotgun everywhere and the cops saw it all the time, got calls on him all the time, and couldn’t do a thing about it as long as he followed the law. He messed up stepping into the hospital and his argument in court was that our signs weren’t of the legal size for his restricted vision to clearly see. He lost and the cops were happy as that shotgun was permanently forfeited (and destroyed). BTW – that conviction now prevents his legal purchase of firearms.

      So, once we decide which type of policing wee want we can determine whether our rights are going to be infringed upon by them or not.

      • You have given me a lot to think about-One thing I do know is that I wasn’t aware that people could walk around with any gun just in their hands-So I realize I need to learn alot more about gun laws. I was thinking of guns in a snapped holster. If a person is carrying a gun, which I question whether or not a person should be able to just carry any gun in their hands around town-I have no problem with a cop stopping them and using extreme caution. If the gun is in a closed holster I just haven’t decided, but I know that a better policy needs to be discussed than the one stated by the police.

        • VH, let me add to what your giving thought to.

          He could have legally carried that shotgun inside the hospital if he met two conditions (even if I could see the outline of the weapon):

          1. He had it concealed under his clothing and;

          2. He had a valid Colorado CCW permit.

          Colorado CCW’s are not firearm specific so if you legally own the firearm and have the CCW you may carry it concealed (yes anita, I’m betting that would mean a grenade launcher too).

          Further the law does not allow a business to prevent the lawful carrying of a concealed weapon upon their premises by the simple act of posting a notice of “no weapons allowed.”

  36. Charlie,

    Tough call

    And yes, they are amazing families thrust together forever by an act that occurred in seconds.

    The boy was in a gang initiation, given a gun to rob a pizza boy.
    The gun went off as he pointed it at the pizza boy, killing him instantly.

    The dead boy’s father – a Sufi Muslim – in their tradition, dug his son’s grave and sat with the body in the grave for a day, “so his son was not alone as he made his passing”.

    While sitting there with the crushing mourning of his son, he had an epiphany and saw this a test of his moral beliefs of forgiveness.

    He found the other parents, invited them to a meeting.

    Of course those parents were terrified – how can you face the family your son destroyed but they were brave enough to go to face the father of the son their son had killed.

    The rest is history.

    • I wish them all the very best and hope the kid in jail catches a break. He’d definitely do better outside than inside; jails can turn a person really fast.

  37. Mathius,

    seeing some guy walk down the street with an exposed weapon is an immediate stressful situation because GUNS ARE FOCKING DANGEROUS!

    Well, so are cars, knifes, bottles, rocks, pencils, motorbikes, matches….

    Thus, so what?

    An exposed weapon IS NOT ANY MORE DANGEROUS THAN AN EXPOSED CAR.

    Be wary of Progressives who cannot truly understand the concepts of “danger”.

    • Actually, that was Charlie the amuser … and if you can’t tell the difference between the danger of an exposerd weapon and a car … oy vey … than you need to backpeddle 41 questions and rethink what you said/wrote.

    • Mathius says:

      How is it that people keep attributing Charlie quotes to me?

      What? Just because we’re both on the left, we’re suddenly interchangeable?

      • We’re “AMUSING” … but that’s okay, Plainly and me are pretty in sync with a few things yet USW only attacks me … and then I get blamed for attacking him.

        Very prejudicial site, you ask me …

        • Here Charlie, take my handkerchief and dry your eyes. No blowing your nose though, that’s good Italian silk! :)

          (I owned a suit made of good Italian silk once. Cost me a bundle. It was my court suit. My ex-wife said it made me look like some two-bit hood enforcer. Huh, she shoulda said well dressed two-bit hood enforcer!)

          • Brioni? I once used to clean their windows … oy vey, the prices in that joint made my head spin. This is back in the 70’s and I’m talking $200-400 shirts.

            I yearn for the days when two-bit hood enforcers got away with wearing warm-up suits … (like Paulie Walnuts on the Sopranos) … now you gotta get the tailor involved. Oy vey.

            • I couldn’t tell you anymore – I don’t remember. All I remember is it was a nice color of blue (my favorite color) and by the time I got done with the suit, shirts, ties and dress shoes at the tailors I dropped over 1500 bucks! lol…..I looked GOOD in that suit too dang it!! Now I’m just an old fat man and no suit would make this ol boy look good.

              Yes sir, the first time I slipped in the back LEO door at the courthouse I got stopped by a fellow deputy and threatened with arrest until he finally recognized me!

      • Mathius, Charlie

        One of you has to change your avatar – both are too dark and look the same to me.

  38. Breaking news!

    A standing O for Netanyahu addressing Congress on this comment:

    Israel is not what is WRONG with the Middle East, it is what is RIGHT with the Middle East.

    • Anita,

      The devil judges himself as a force of good, too.

      • I knew that would give you a burr on your brow ;)

        • The man is talking about wanting and needing peace..how can YOU argue that?

          • Anita,

            Remember that terrible movie “Mars Attacks”?

            “We come in Peace”, while they obliterate mankind.

            Watch the clip.
            Then watch the Alien.
            That is Netanyahu.

            • Not my kinda flick!

              You’re the man of no borders..what do you care how much land they want?

              • Anita,

                Whose is “they”?
                Whose land are they “wanting”?
                What are they willing to do to take other people’s land?

              • Knowing I will never win this one (or any)…..

                Better take that one up with the people in the 40’s..Israel is no bigger than Delaware…I just can’t understand the big deal…If it was going to be such a problem then why was Israel even created to begin with? Talk about a bait & switch!

              • I’m out for now..Daughter is in the air as we speak..coming home for good…YAY!

  39. Charlie,

    Maybe … but voicing their opinion and then voting for what they believe is their right too. It wouldn’t make them stupid if their side of an argument/vote won (I don’t think).

    Voting to steal from your neighbor is no “Right”.

    So, it depends on their motives for voting and what they are voting for.

    Not everything -heck, almost nothing in fact – is made “correct” by a majority vote.

    if they don’t agree with an anarchist’s argument that no government is best for all …

    I find it bizaare that people believe that not imposing a belief on people IS imposing a belief on people.

    Such mind tornadoes would be laughable, except such minds are too dangerous to laugh at.

    I hope you don’t mean the remnant

    No, not usually. The Remnant, by their feature, are usually people who mind their own business and stay out of other people’s lives.

    • Bizarre

      My brother, you’re one of the most bizarre characters I’ve ever come across … intelligent and bizarre …

      No, not usually. The Remnant, by their feature, are usually people who mind their own business and stay out of other people’s lives.

      Say what? You want all of us redskies to have no free meals! What’s up with that?

      • Charlie,

        You want all of us redskies to have no free meals!

        Oh, there are plenty of free meals – called “Charity”.

        But that scares you, sir.

        What haunts you deep in your soul … What is given freely can be taken away just the same.

        So, that feeling twists inside of you to be …. What I take, becomes mine. I define my take, when I take, how I take. Only me and my own violent power, and I depend on nothing freely given

  40. He is not arguing morality and black/white reality (which doesn’t exist) in a vacuum.

    Matt, zinging the flagster … amusing, to say the least.

  41. Anita

    I forgot to thank you for the warm thoughts the other day, as you flew over.

    All that snow you saw is finally starting to melt. Rivers are high and nasty. I do hope you get a chance to come out and revel in the Rockies some day.

    I hope your trip to Hawaii was wonderful. And congrats on having your girl closer to home.

    JAC

    • Thank you JAC..She made it home safe and its been a good day! All that snow I saw..I dont think it will all melt til August!
      When, not if, I make it out there by land, I want you to be my guide! :)

  42. @ Buck and Charlie…. You guys really seem hung up on “the norm” in this gun carrying business. Why is that? Why would you deem thath relevant to “HEY JUNIOR”? Just from this Texans point of view, if it IS ( and I am told all of Philly just about is ) a high crime area, why would it not be normal to pack some heat? But, I will will digress to your strange ways… I was carrying before I was weaned, some say.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I could knock the head off a matchstick from 800m in a heavy cross-wind before I would walk.

    • Colonel: In suburban areas like Philly, NY, etc., people don’t (either by law or otherwise) walk around with exposed guns. To get a permit to carry in NY is extremely hard. Philly, apparently allows it, but it is not done as a routine; people, I have to assume, are smart enough not to flount their hardware in a high crime urban environment. It just isn’t done. So when a cop sees someone with an exposed weapon, tensions that already exist for the cop are heightened. That doesn’t excuse his being an asshole, but it does help to explain why he might’ve been an asshole. The guy instigating the situation was clearly an asshole (stupid enough to risk getting clipped so his video could be discussed on a lunatic site like SUFA) … :)

      • Buck the Wala says:

        D13,

        Like he said.

        No one is giving the cop a free pass here, there was no reason to start the encounter with a condescending ‘Hey Junior’. But forgetting about that one line for a second, why do you feel the need to give the other guy a free pass? He was clearly baiting the cop a bit as well and only acted in a manner to escalate an already tense situation.

        The ‘norm’ matters because its what informs the cop who sees a guy walking down the street with a gun. If this were an area where everyone walked around with their guns, there wouldn’t be any reason for the cop to be suspicious. But it wasn’t – rather, this was a high crime area of Philly where people do NOT typically open carry.

        In this situation, is it better for the cop to stop him or just let him keep walking down the street? And please forget the ‘Hey Junior’ line in your answer to this question.

        • Terry Evans says:

          Hell, I don’t even really have a problem with the “hey Junior” part…there are a whole lot worse ways to start out. My issue with the officer is when he started cursing the citizen when his hands were up and he told the officer the very law/ordinance that allowed his current actions.

          I do not agree with the citizen arguing with the officer even though he was in the right (within the law). If it were me and I had gun pointed at my head, I would have dropped and (attempted) to give him 50 pushups if that is what he wanted. The

          • Mathius says:

            Yes, except that no.

            No.

            No, goddammit.

            No!

            They work for me. I do not work for them.

            I will not bow before someone sworn uphold the law in direct defiance of those same laws.

            “[...] I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
            here is where your proud waves halt’?” Job 38:11

            or, if you prefer

            “I will not sacrifice the Enterprise my rights. We’ve made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!” Jean Luc Picard

            or, if you prefer,

            “Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

            —–

            No man is allowed to make me lie down in the dirt when I have done nothing wrong. I will not stand for it. It seems evident that Mark Fiorino will not stand for it. We walk this Earth with rights, and we sacrifice some of those rights in deference to the law, but beyond what we have lawfully consented to by our choice to continue living in this nation, we are free human begins, men and women who are not slaves. We do no have to lie down for anyone, regardless of whether they have a badge or not, if they are outside of that authority. Period.

            If it were me and I had gun pointed at my head, I would have dropped and (attempted) to give him 50 pushups if that is what he wanted. That is your choice to enslave yourself to your fear. Fiorino made a risky choice, it’s true, but he pushed back and drew a line. Someone has to.

            • Careful Mathius, your conservative demon is showing. ;)

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Oh please Mathius, as much as you disagree in theory, we all know you would drop to the ground faster than anyone. That and you would probably soil your pants as well. (I know I would!) :)

              • Mathius says:

                Really not.. I let myself get pushed only so far, but then I usually snap, consequences be damned.

                This, I think, would probably be very close to my breaking point. No way would I get out of this situation without being arrested or shot.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Fair enough – I can actually see that as the outcome (you being either arrested or shot)

              • Terry Evans says:

                I tend to believe you Buck…you know Mathius better than the rest of us.

                Mathius, if it were not for the gun trained on my cranium, I would also resist…but it is difficult to augue with a bullet.

              • Mathius says:

                HA… well let’s hope we never find out which of us is right.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Either way, wouldn’t end pretty.

              • Mathius…….I know you better than that….you are like me in a certain respect. I would look at the officer and give him the wry smile that reflects ” You blew it buster”..lie down all the while knowing that I would get the last laugh. I would then let him proceed to do what he could have done if civil….and then the next day start whatever proceedings I needed to in order to make his life a living, descrating, undeniably tortured hell.

            • Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!” Jean Luc Picard

              “Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

              And I will defend your right to draw the line and fight for them….and you will support that though my line be different from where you draw yours, I have to fight to the death for mine should I so choose?

              • Mathius says:

                Yes……. but

                The law is the law such as it is. The police officer was out of his authority granted by the that power. That power is granted by We The People. Thus, he was in violation. If it was legal to make people lie down in the dirt for no reason, then.. well then I’d fight hard to change that law or move, but I don’t know that I’d openly defy it.

                That said, draw your own lines. Fight as you see fit. Just don’t hit any civilians in the crossfire.

              • Ok, I see your point. So then I must ask you to explain whether or not – after the court ruling in Indiana deciding law and ::cough:: public policy – whether you would resist an unlawful entry by cops into your home or if you must submit because the “law” (being the courts in this case) says you must?

              • Oh, and for the record I once held a man at gunpoint in a crowded mall. I told him I’d shoot him dead if he moved on more step. Thank God he believed me because I could not have fired and risked all those innocent lives.

                One of the most scared moments in my life!

              • Mathius says:

                … Yes .. I, me personally, would let the cop in and then sue the living daylights out of the department afterward. I think. Personally, it would be a tough call, but I think so.

                But if you wanted to draw the line before there.. well, as I said, just try not to hit any civilians in the crossfire.

                Adding, you have to share the story about the mall now. I’m intrigued.

            • Okay, not Matt is officially scaring me … oy vey

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I can validate that people absolutely do not walk around Philadelphia with exposed guns. It does not happen.

        • Hey, Ray…..I understand…I really do. I do not put the impetus on the norm as much as I do the disrespect and condescending attitude that started this….openly carrying did not start the confrontation…professionalism should have.

    • Colonel,

      I am afraid I will have to side with Buck and company of the “norm” points. it was out of the norm and would draw police attention – hell, cops look for things that are out of the norm.

      I would have a hard time believing that cops in Texas wouldn’t have stopped the guy under the same circumstances wherein it was outside the “norm” of the area the cop was patrolling. If they didn’t, well….they’re not very good cops then IMHO.

  43. TexasChem says:

    Texas actually has laws to protect citizens from unlawful arrest and search if the officer uses greater force than necessary. Better be damned certain of the greater force being used though…

    (b) The use of force against another is not justified:
    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

    (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    The Self Defense Laws Of Texas

    The Texas Constitution

    Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
    Section 23 – RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

    “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

    Self Defense Statutes
    (Texas Penal Code)

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

    (b) The use of force against another is not justified:

    (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

    (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

    (4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

    (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

    (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

    (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:

    (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

    (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

    (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
    Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Deadly Force in Defense of Person

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery.”

    Defense of Another Person

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death.”

    Deadly Force to Protect Property

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.”

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”

    Protection of the Property of Others

    “A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief.”

    “Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child.”

    Reasonable Belief

    “It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time.”

    “In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary.”

    Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

    “Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable.”

    “A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person’s standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time.”

    Self Defense Definitions

    “Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.”

    “Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon.”

    “Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft.”

    “Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person.”

  44. @ Plainly, Charlie, Buck, Mathius and even DPM….

    First, the guy that chose to fight back in the manner he did was not a good choice. You pick your battles and battleground….he did not choose wisely.

    Second, for Buck….. I think if you read back, I did not and do not give a “free pass” to Fiorino. I do not think nor do I believe that he was carrying a tape recorder in case he had to use his weapon. I firmly believe he had a different motive. He was looking for a fight. That said…..

    Back to the norm business. I would pack heat openly (if it were allowed) in a high crime area for the purpose of them knowing that I was packing….that would be an option. A police officer is supposed to be a trained individual. Now, setting aside the rights issue here, I also understand (not believe in it but understand) that if I were openly carrying in an area that it is not normal to carry, the police officer, demonstrating a safety issue, would have a responsibility to check to see if the man carrying was properly licensed according to the laws of the area. I understand this. But the same theory should apply in a high crime area. As an officer, would you NOT assume that everyone is concealing? Why not stop them and frisk them on the sidewalk? But I answered my own question of the norm. This is how I see it: a supposedly highly trained police officer in a high crime area sees a person walking down the street with a open carry that is not normal. Ok…hmmm. If he were a criminal, he would conceal the gun so as to not draw attention BUT he might surmise that is how I would think so, therefore he is openly carrying to try to fool me, so I will be careful and check him anyway. This uniform and this badge gives me the authority to do so. (So far, I am ok with this). However, the uniform and the badge and the authority does not trump civility and HEY JUNIOR is clearly designed to show authority and disrespect and put the man off guard. And the lack of knowledge of the carry law is inexcusable. So, the “norm” is number three on my antagonist list.

    In Texas, we do not have open carry on handguns…yet. It will be passed this year. HOwever, we have open carry on all weapons in cars. Handguns can be in clear sight on the seat and rifles and shotguns are normal…especially rural areas, where they are carried in gun racks in pickups and such. You can drive to a bank, a liquor store or anywhere with guns in your car. You can carry a weapon anywhere unless there is a posted sign saying that the establishment does not allow them. The police do not stop people for guns in plain sight in cars and such. But, I guess that you call that a norm since it is done all the time.

    This Fiorino may have been a fuse but HEY JUNIOR was the match….in m opinion. I guess that being outside the norm is cause for a harder look but not cause for a condescending attitude that set all this in motion. A badge and uniform does not a free pass get.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      “Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        That is in reference to “First, the guy that chose to fight back in the manner he did was not a good choice. You pick your battles and battleground….he did not choose wisely.”

    • Colonel,

      And I believe we are saying in separate ways the same thing. Let me see if I can tie this up in a neat and complete package:

      1. We agree that it would be expected to be stopped by the police and questioned for openly carrying a gun in an area where it is not normal to see that being done.

      2. We agree that the cop’s attitude in contacting Fiorino was wrong – period. “Hey junior” is not the way he was trained, is not professional, and not the way any of us would expect he should speak to a citizen.

      3. And we can agree that bad guys do dumb things……as well as good, law-abiding citizens do.

      How’s that work gentlemen?

  45. Mathius,

    how would you guess that my brain power stacks up to yours? Honesty, if you please.

    Inferior….

    But not enough to disable you from the occasional coherent argument -which makes you, unfortunately, a worthy opponent.

    In other words, you do ok, “junior” ;)

    That said, his eloquence helps whereas your blunt abrasiveness is.. offputting and immediately inclines the reader to argue rather than consider. But the true difference is in the argument itself.

    I have purpose in my abrupt style – it is by design.

    He is not arguing morality and black/white reality (which doesn’t exist) in a vacuum. He is building a case that it gun control is fundamentally unworkable and addresses the wrong issue (the tools over the irresponsible individual).

    The reason it is unworkable is because it is immoral.

    • Mathius says:

      Inferior..

      Good to know :)

      But not enough to disable you from the occasional coherent argument -which makes you, unfortunately, a worthy opponent.

      Mathius: I know something you don’t know.
      Black Flag: What is that?
      Mathius: I’m not left-handed.

      • Mathius,


        BF: You are amazing.

        Mathius: I ought to be, after 20 years.

        BF: Oh, there’s something I ought to tell you.

        Mathius: Tell me.

        BF: I’m not left-handed either.

  46. Mathius,

    You do not need a license to drive a car.

    • PS: You do not need a license for anything…..but it is required.

      @ BF: Supposed to do a check ride for my 6 month IFR endorsement. Wonder how the Baron will perform in a class four thunderstorm… Vertical wind shead at 414 MPH…..probably not too good…think I will wait.

      • Wonder what a shead is…… Shear……shear……shear…..shear…..

      • D13,

        Repeat – you do NOT, nor is it REQUIRED for you to have a license to drive a car – repeat this sentence over and over until it becomes 2nd nature.

        You need a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public road way.

        You do not need a license to operate a motor vehicle on private property

  47. Mathius Says:
    May 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Adding, you have to share the story about the mall now. I’m intrigued.

    Ok, if you wish. It’s a kinda a long story though, sorry.

    It was just 2 years before I hung up my badge (I didn’t retire either – I quit, I couldn’t stand the work anymore – I lost heart and faith in myself and my profession). I was a deputy working custody for the past 5 years then (California). There was an inmate, a convicted violent felon, who was in custody on a parole violation. He got into a fight with an officer and I was one of several who responded and subdued him. He was chained and cuffed and escorted to a holding cell in the booking area. For whatever reason he choose he decided it was all my fault and started threatening me. No biggie, I was used to be threatened. But, he then threatened to kill my sons. At first I just stared at him with a “yeah, sure” look on my face caused he just said “your kids.” Then he described my sons and told me where I lived, what car I drove. At that moment i locked eyes with him and seriously considered snapping his neck right there. I had the blood lust on me and if it hadn’t been for my Sergeant standing between me and his chained, defenseless butt he would have been a dead man. Sarge stopped me from doing anything. She saw the look on my face and later told me she had never been so scared of anyone before then. She held me back just long enough for me to regain my sanity – thank God!

    Well, long and short of the story it was all documented and reported to his parole officer. Where he was looking at 6 months for a violation the hearing board made it a year for the threats to me and my family. Further, his parole conditions in future were modified. He was to stay a minimum of 100 yards from me, my family, my car, my home. Off to San Quentin he then went to serve his year.

    When his time was up he was cut loose on parole again and reminded of all of his parole conditions (and flat out told that I would shoot him dead if he came on me or mine). Well a couple months after he got out I took my sons to the mall for a bit of present shopping (they were 7 and 4 at the time). My family always knew to walk away from me if I told them too, no arguments. Because I knew he was out I was packing my 9mm semi-auto (carrying 15 rounds – always with one chambered). There we are walking down the hall of the mall and I look out and see him about 75-80 feet away. He saw me and my sons at the same time and started towards us. Retreat was out of the question, we were to far inside the mall. I ordered my oldest son to take his brother and go into the store we were in front of and tell the clerk to call the police and to stay in the store. I then stood out in front of the store and watched him. He crossed over and started walking up to me. I had enough at 30 feet distance. I drew my weapon, cocked the hammer back, took up a two-handed stance and order him to stop. I told him if he took one more step I shoot him dead right on the spot.

    Now, I was in street clothes – off duty. People freaked and started running and or laying on the floor. Men, women, children. I was scared s**tless that he wouldn’t believe me. If he called my bluff I was screwed. I wanted to shoot him, I would have under other circumstances – but Lord help me all those people where at risk.

    Thankfully he believed me. I got him face down on the floor and kept him covered till the city PD showed up. They drew on me, they couldn’t see who I was as they came up behind me. I just told them I was SO and had my badge on me. One came around and me enough to see my face. I personally knew him and he confirmed to the others I was SO. Whew! I coulda been shot.

    Anyways, the parolee was taken into custody. He ended up doing another year in prison and was paroled – to another city in California and never bothered me again. According to his parole agent he said he knew I was going to kill him and he screwed up walking towards me like that. He said he was just trying to scare me.

    We, little does he know, he scared me all right.

    So, there you have it. By the Grace of God all eneded safely for everyone there.

    • BTW – the day he went to prison again I stopped carrying regularly……until he got out again.

      He was the only one who threatened me and mine that I ever believed.

      • Mathius says:

        I have a big back yard.. if you need to, er, dispose of anything you wouldn’t want found at your home if people came looking, it’s at your service.

        • Thanks for the kind offer, but I am 11 years gone from the job, and 8 years gone from CA.

          lolol…..besides that I doubt that city boy will ever find his way up into the Colorado mountains where I live……….and never make out alive if he did.

          Lots of dangerous wildlife up here ya know. ;)

  48. Okay, I’m back from the gym. Yo’ll miss me?
    I’ll bet.
    Good to see my stepson has become proactive in his later years (21 going on 7 or so). He’s moved from sleeping in the basement through the day to taking a shower upstairs and sleeping up there. it is now 4:00 p.m. … do you know where your stepchildren are?

    • it is now 4:00 p.m. … do you know where your stepchildren are?

      Heck no, I divorced that wife too!

      Yo’ll miss me?

      Charlie who?
      :)

      • I raise you 3 divorces … to your 2.

        charlie stirrer (how the Chinese pronounce my last name) … that’s a joke in case any of your crazies on the right are Chinese.

        He just left the house (my stepson) … this could be monumental … he didn’t have his Target shirt on … he may actually be going out to do something (like buy fast food and come back to play more video games) … honestly, you complain about illegal immigrants … it’s the friggin’ kids that are already citizens need to be shipped the FOCK out of the country …

        • I raise you four divorces to your three Charlie. lol.

          Now think careful over this next part. I’m in marriage #5, wife #4.

          Next?

        • Bama dad says:

          Wow you two have been trading in old models for new models like cars. I and the old ball and chain of 38 years are on our way out to watch a James Taylor concert tonight. (pssst don’t tell her I called her a ball and chain, she will hurt me).

  49. I am a former law enforcement officer. I listened to the tape of the confrontation. The civilian was wrong. The civilian immediately escalated the situation by becoming belligerent at the outset. We are trained that if someone displays aggressive behavior we are to take it up one notch. Had I been that cop, and had a taser, the civilian would have been tased as soon as he became aggressive and uncooperative. Remember this – just because a subject says he will cooperate does not mean that he is cooperating.

    When encountering someone with a firearm that is open and visible the cop should never assume that this individual is a cooperative law abiding citizen. More police officers have been killed by assuming someone is a law abiding person.

    Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assumption and attitude about this entire incident.

    One more thing. The “hey junior” from the cop was most likely meant to let the man carrying the gun know that he was considered a “belligerent” until proven otherwise. Put yourself in the position of the cop. What would you do if you found someone just walking down the street carrying a gun? Would you naturally assume he was peaceful and not say anything, (which if he was not you would be held accountable for anything he had done that you could have prevented) or would you approach him in an apologetic manner (which if he was a “bad guy” you would most likely be killed), or would you take the stance that that officer correctly did?

    Being a cop really isn’t as easy as you would like everyone to believe.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Good points, GA. Good points.

      • Mathius says:

        You only think that because he agrees with you.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Even you can admit that he makes some valid points from the perspective of the cop.

          • Mathius says:

            I can.

            But I still think that the fact that the man was within his legal rights is override of all other facts.

            • So if “we the people” wrote and passed a law that said cops could stop a law abiding citizen legally and openly carrying a firearm on the street and check his permit to do so then you have no argument and would immediately comply?

              And later complain later that the cop’s attitude sucked?

              • Mathius says:

                I might complain about his attitude. And I might complain about the law. And I might work hard to repeal said law.

                But, for me, that’s not something that would solicit open defiance at risk of a bullet to the head.

                Now, if the law said that they could come into my house and search without a permit (no, that’s not what the Illinois SC said), then maybe that would merit open defiance from.

                We all have to draw our own lines. Personally, a police officer’s job is to uphold the law. Beyond the scope of those powers, he is a civilian. And a civilian is not permitted to order me to lie in the dirt.

              • Oh I don’t disagree with you. The cop made a mistake (initial contact attitude). It is understandable why he made contact, just like we don’t “know” all the laws, neither do cops (and no, you can’t expect them to – that is unreasonable).

                It’s your right to choose to stand your ground and not budge, but that cop is going to – as G.A. pointed out – follow his training and escalate to control the situation and gain compliance. You must accept that just because you are right doesn’t mean you will initially win the confrontation. Cops are not trained to relent once they start. They will take it to some conclusion that ends the situation – maybe peacefully, maybe not.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I understand your hang-up in all this, I really do, but I still gotta side with the cop (though do agree he could have handled the situation better as well).

              Wouldn’t you want a cop stopping a guy they see walking around your neighborhood with a gun? I hardly believe this would be a normal occurrence in your neck of the woods and would warrant some suspicion, no?

              • Mathius says:

                Sure it would. And I’m fine with him stopping the guy and asking him what he’s doing. I’m ok with pointing a gun at him.

                I’m not ok with
                (A) “Hey Junior!”
                (B) Abusive language.
                (C) Ordering him to the ground rather than, say, disarming him, since he was non-threatening.
                (D) Not knowing the law.
                (E) Not calling for confirmation after the man cited the exact code from memory.
                (F) A lack of apology.

              • Buck,

                The cop should know the law.
                The department should have reacted to previous incidents with this guy and likely others. They impounded his gun and were required to return it because they had not followed the law. If anything, this shows the department was knowingly ignoring the law, to enforce it as they see fit.
                The cop may also have been in the wrong for drawing his gun and pointing it at an unarmed suspect. Having a gun is not holding a gun. Would have to know what their procedure is on this. I think they usually start with freeze, show me your hands.

                I do agree the guy was wrong to not get on the ground, as ordered.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                A) agreed
                B) agreed, though understand things can escalate pretty quickly in a tense situation such as this
                C) Yes and No – depends on the scenario, I’m willing to give the cop some latitute to ensure his own protection.
                D) agreed
                E) agreed in principal but also willing to give some latitude on timing based on the situation at hand
                F) eh, wouldn’t really mean anything anyway

                And to LOI — the guy was not unarmed, he had a gun. Having a gun is not holding a gun?? True it may not have been in his hand at the given moment, but let’s be realistic here. He was armed and I have no problem with the cop drawing his weapon for safety reasons.

    • Hey G A….. I can cincur with most that you say. But to be condescending to gain control is wrong….until the man shows belligerance. While I can appreciate and know that being LE is not an easy task, from what I heard, it was escalated the minute Hey Junior came out. It would be in my case. No one….even a cop, is going to call me that without a smart as remark back. So guilty until proven innocent, even on the street, I cannot abide with….even in this case. Notwithstanding the dangers a cop goes through, and I am very mindful of that, if you are taught and trained that you take control of a situation that has not become belligerent by a condenscending attitude, then your training will be wrong, in my opinion.

      Any LE, including you, prior to confrontation is going to be ready. If he moves for the gun, you blast.

      YOu asked what I would do? I would put myself into position to thwart any stupidity and not respond HEY JUNIOR….or HEY COWBOY or anything like that. I am not LE but know plenty and have talked to a lot. Most LE here tell me that they felt the cop started the belligerence by his attitude….BUT..as I said…this is not Philly. Some said that they feel a power condenscending attitude portrays control. I disagree and this guilty until proven innocent is crap… I would consider the man innocent until there was a warrant or until he exhbited irrational behaviour…..but carrying a legal weapon…I will not ever consider a man guilty until proven innocent.

      But, I am not in Philly and I am not a cop…this is merely my prospective.

      • I might add…..I do not know what was said PRIOR to the tape recorder….That may also have a bearing.

        • Here in AZ we have a law that says we can openly carry a loaded weapon in a safe and responsible manner, so that incident would never have happened here. However, in CA where I spent a lot of my career, not only would the guy be stopped but most likely would have been taken down with a taser almost immediately. My point is this; Different States have different laws. I do not know the PA laws, and I will not argue the merits or demerits of that cop. When faced with someone with a firearm, follow your training and you will go home at the end of your shift instead of laying on a slab in the morgue.

          You all can disagree with me as much as you want, but I am still alive and a lot of “bad guys” went to jail, and believe me when I say that they did not have a pleasant time being arrested by me. Most of those whom I had the unpleasant experience of having to arrest more than once did not offer any resistance due to that first arrest experience, so it worked out in my favor. And no, I did not purposely go around looking for people to beat up while arresting them.

          My time in law enforcement gave me an education through experience that no classroom in the world could give. Yet, with the attitude of the general public today, I would never enter into that kind of work. I see that attitude with most of those on here passing judgement on that one cop without any knowledge of the entire situation but that one audio tape(news media call that a sound bite). We always had to wait for all the evidence was gathered about any one case before we could even name a suspect, and even then it had to be hashed out in court before the final judgement was made. And here you all (well, not all of you) are convicting a cop on the street without trial or a full investigation. Back in my USMC days we called people who did that sort of thing “Sea Lawyers” . . . Nuff said.

          • Good points all, GA…..all the evidence is not in and the street and war teaches lessons that classroom can never teach. And I can respect your position.

  50. And one reason for concealed carry. Should these people in the store have called 911 instead?
    http://www.freep.com/article/20110510/NEWS06/105100429/Worker-gun-turns-tables-bandits-Walgreens

    Worker with a gun turns the tables on bandits at Walgreens
    May 10, 2011 |

    BENTON TOWNSHIP — They wore masks.

    They wore gloves.

    They brandished handguns.

    But there was one thing two robbers didn’t anticipate when they barged into a Benton Township Walgreens drugstore early Sunday and tried to march workers into the back room: A worker already in back carried a handgun and knew how to use it.

    Township police Lt. Delmar Lange said the worker fired multiple shots at one of the bandits, forcing the men to flee.

    “He could see the hostage situation developing,” Lange said. “He could not retreat any farther. He was in the back room. If it was me, I would have done the same thing.”

    Lange said the worker, whose name was not released, saw one of the robbers force another worker from the front of the building toward the rear. That robber then saw the worker in back and started to pursue him.

    The worker then fired multiple shots.

    The robber tried to fire back, but his gun malfunctioned. The robber and his partner ran out.

    Lange said none of the four workers was hurt in the 4:30 a.m. incident in the store at Napier Avenue and M-139.

    It’s unclear whether the robber was struck, he said. Police are asking hospitals across the area to report if someone comes in with gunshot wounds.

    Lange said security camera videos indicate the worker acted appropriately. He said the videos show that the robbers were “very aggressive and very dangerous in what they did and how they did it.”

    He said the worker was licensed to carry the concealed handgun.

    • Only one thing wrong…..he missed.

      • Had the same thought. No info on how far or what he was carrying. I had a little .22 revolver, VERY concealable, but after three to five feet, hitting an attacker would be dumb luck.
        Which is why I no longer have that gun. Would suck to have an anti-gun employer and only be able to carry a poor firearm or go unarmed.

        • Would suck to have an anti-gun employer and only be able to carry a poor firearm or go unarmed.

          If you had an anti-gun employer why would you be carrying a gun at all?

          (Now I am presuming your comment means the employer will not allow employees to have guns on the premises)

          • Mathius says:

            What his anti-gun employer doesn’t know, can’t get him fired.

            • While true, if/when said employer finds out you’re out of a job.

              Plus if employer found out as a result of a shooting incident said employer will likely have other problems to deal with – like the possibly cancelled insurance. possible lawsuits should anyone be harmed, etc.

            • I would carry. Better to be fired than shot.

              http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal/read.aspx?id=3777

              Outrage Of The Week: “Safest for everybody?” Pizza Hut punishes employee for defending himself

              Friday, April 04, 2008

              “The incident wasn’t something quick and simple. … It was a long ordeal…my life was, without a doubt, in danger.”

              On the night of March 27, 2008, Pizza Hut deliveryman James Spiers of Des Moines, Iowa was delivering pizzas–just as he had many times before over the past 10 years. He walked into an apartment complex thinking he was making another routine delivery, but found himself in a battle for his life: he had been set up by a “customer” who had lured him into the complex by pretending to order the pizza over the phone, but who had an armed accomplice waiting in ambush.

              Spiers soon found himself trapped in a hallway with a gun to his head, his assailant demanding money. “Without a doubt,” he said, “my life was in extreme danger.”

              The thug (who, not surprisingly, has a long list of prior arrests) thought he had the upper hand. Fortunately, Mr. Spiers has a valid concealed carry permit, and was carrying a pistol for personal protection at the time of the attack. He struggled with his attacker and managed to draw his own firearm. He shot the assailant, who fled the scene but was later arrested after he sought medical treatment.

              Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the story. As a result of his actions, Mr. Spiers, a single father trying to make an honest living, was suspended from his job by his employer, Pizza Hut. That’s right. A man who, as a result of doing his job, was forced into a life-threatening situation, defended himself, and whose actions helped take a career criminal off the street, was deprived of his livelihood. Pizza Hut suspended James Spiers for defending his life.

              Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut, said, “We have a policy against carrying weapons. We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”

              • While I am glad he was was not hurt, the company had every right to terminate his employment for violating the policy against being armed.

                The policy was no firearms and so then the choice was his and he has to accept the consequences.

                If one doesn’t like the terms and conditions of their voluntarily accepted employment then don’t take the job or resign if you already have the position.

  51. Regarding that Bin Laden debate … as to who is responsible once “an order to kill” is issued.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j7N_b7vaN5LWMDs6mHqJ-5SImzRw?docId=CNG.de2f9507caf8e9c4dbed479b7e7fb210.511

    I’m just saying …

  52. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    We can all go back and re-read Robert Heinlein’s “Beyond this Horizon”, only his second novel. You could choose to carry openly in the society but wore a brassard which indicated that you were carrying. Of course this was a society where one who did not carry was required to defer to one who did and where duels were commonplace over insults. It is also the first place where I remember the phrase “An armed society is a polite society” either being used in or applied to the novel.

  53. How many of you remember the Harvard Professor who was arrested at his home? And Obama said the police acted “stupidly”?

    If I remember correctly, most of you thought in that case that the police were right and the professor was wrong. How is that different than this?

    • Mathius says:

      Police officer was very wrong there.

      See? I’m consistent!

    • Are you kidding????????????
      Police are called about a possible break-in in process. When they arrive, they find a man trying o break-in or had just broken-in the home? The ask what he’s doing, politely. He answers. They ask for I.D., he tells them to f*** themselves, etc.. They should have tassered him, then arrested him.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Yeah but you forget, he was a Black professor therefore it was racism, plain and simple to ask for proof or ID.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers

%d bloggers like this: